Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751170AbWJDVth (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:49:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751171AbWJDVth (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:49:37 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:31448 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170AbWJDVtg (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:49:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=uOId+LSfrV0iE1CKdSYWtFvpL0GppPuxzAWBK40Mhk044T7YZfh2xaaf40Y+zlUxc rqR/8WygaNw7701xv6JzA== Message-ID: <6599ad830610041449v5dfd9ef3r4fb1e3453a8e6144@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:49:30 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system Cc: pj@sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, winget@google.com, mbligh@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, jlan@sgi.com, Joel.Becker@oracle.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net In-Reply-To: <6599ad830610041440n74056262v63528c0d22ca5cb8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061002095319.865614000@menage.corp.google.com> <1159925752.24266.22.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830610031934s41994158o59f1a2e58b1cb45e@mail.gmail.com> <1159988217.24266.60.camel@linuxchandra> <6599ad830610041440n74056262v63528c0d22ca5cb8@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 980 Lines: 23 On 10/4/06, Paul Menage wrote: > > > > > - Tight coupling of subsystems: I like your idea (you mentioned in a > > > > reply to the previous thread) of having an array of containers in task > > > > structure than the current implementation. > > > ... BTW, that's not to say that having parallel hierarchies of containers is necessarily a bad thing - I can imagine just mounting multiple instances of containerfs, each managing one of the container pointers in task_struct - but I think that could be added on afterwards. Even if we did have the parallel support, we'd still need to support multiple subsystems/controllers on the same hierarchy, since I think that's going to be the much more common case. Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/