Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] Some basic vserver infrastructure

[Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>I certainly have not.  I do feel that developing this just from the
>top down is the wrong way to do this.  
>  
>

OK, you said "just" the top down. That's fine, I can agree with that.
Obviously if any of the implementation of the top down features hits
ugliness that needs refactoring, that refactoring has to go first.

>In some of the preliminary
>patches we have found several pieces of code that we will have to
>touch that is currently in need of a cleanup.  That is why I have
>been cleaning up /proc.  sysctl is in need of similar treatment
>but is in less bad shape.
>  
>

I made a preliminary attempt to rebase the /proc hooks atop of your
work. I looked forward to being ready for if a patchset like this got
adopted to -mm to be able to hand that piece over :-).

The reason I didn't persue that to completion was I wasn't sure how I
would then submit it - relative to the -mm tree? I didn't want to
include your patches in my series.

It would be nice if someone could make a git branch on kernel.org for
each -mm release so it can be more easily imported to a git tree. Sure,
`stg import' might take a while for all 1,400 patches, but that's OK -
so long as Andrew's not waiting for it :-).

>I don't think that is the case on the fundamentals.  I think with pids
>I am an inch away from implementing a pid namespace that is both
>recursive, efficient, and can map all of the pids into another pid
>space if that is desirable.  Plus I can merge most of it incrementally
>in the existing kernel, before I even allow for multiple pid spaces.
>
>Which should reduce the patch for multiple pid namespaces to something
>reasonable to talk about.
>  
>

Well I see pids as just another virtualisable entity, but OK... if you
come up with anything I'm happy to rebase atop it.

>>What about going back to the very simple "struct container" on which to
>>build?
>>    
>>
>
>I guess my problem there is that isn't something on which to build
>that is something to hang things off of. 
>  
>

Yes, hanging things off is the intention, but they are both starting
points, just from different perspectives.

Sam.