From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:29:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20090312162954.4a4b8e00@thinkcentre.lan> References: <1236880612-15316-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1236880612-15316-1-git-send-email-danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dan Smith Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hi Dan. Dan Smith wrote: > (apologies if you see this multiple times...IBM mail server troubles) > > This patch adds a "phase" of c/r that saves out information about any > namespaces the task(s) may have. Do this by tracking the nsproxy of the > first task and making sure that the tasks that follow get hooked back to > share the same one on restart. On restart, we also explicitly create new > namespaces for any that we support at the first task. I'd like there to be some discussion about this, because namespace creation seems like a significant addition to the semantics of restart as I understand it. Is namespace creation during restart unavoidable, or merely desirable? Is there a case for requiring the user to provide a suitable namespace environment before attempting restart?