Re: Signals to cinit

[Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Serge E. Hallyn [serue@us.ibm.com] wrote:
| Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
| > > | Perhaps we can start with something like the patch below. Not that I like
| > > | it very much though. We should really place this code under
| > > | CONFIG_I_DO_CARE_ABOUT_NAMESPACES ;)
| > >
| > > CONFIG_PID_NS ?
| > 
| > Ah yes, we have it ;)
| 
| Except I believe all distros at this point enable CONFIG_PID_NS, so
| I'm not sure it's the right thing to use.

But if they do enable CONFIG_PID_NS they would want the signals to
behave correctly ? IIUC, the reason we want to the hide the code
is that it is not clean i.e if its not experimental or error-prone,
are there other reasons someone with CONFIG_PID_NS=y want to hide it ?