From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934011AbXDCQjH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:39:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934012AbXDCQjH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:39:07 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:58692 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934011AbXDCQjE (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:39:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:16:15 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Paul Menage" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Eric W. Biederman" , akpm@osdl.org, pj@sgi.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem Message-ID: <20070403164615.GJ2456@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070212085105.170265000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070331024722.GA808@in.ibm.com> <20070402140938.GF17710@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070402142727.GF2456@in.ibm.com> <20070403153220.GA24946@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830704030845p654cf8dh65ccdc46c92d3688@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830704030845p654cf8dh65ccdc46c92d3688@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:45:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > Whilst I've got no objection in general to using nsproxy rather than > the container_group object that I introduced in my latest patches, So are you saying lets (re-)use tsk->nsproxy but also retain 'struct container' to store general per-group state? If so, I think that would address my main concern of redundant/avoidable new pointers in task_struct introduced in the container patches .. -- Regards, vatsa