From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support. Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:00:05 +0900 Message-ID: <46A85485.40502@gmail.com> References: <1182446577.8138.29.camel@localhost> <20070621211637.GB10583@suse.de> <20070622001328.GA14113@suse.de> <20070625212339.GA13398@kroah.com> <46A3B449.3090409@gmail.com> <20070722202508.GA18018@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Linux Containers , Greg KH , Dave Hansen List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hello, Okay, some questions. * What do you think about not allowing duplicate names across different tags? ie. there's only one ethX anywhere but it's visible only in a specific namespace (and maybe in the default global one). Or does everyone need its own eth0. If this is acceptable, the problem becomes _much_ simpler. * I think we can do away with the magic tag and use a pointer to vfsmount instead. So, a process which wants to be in certain namespace can bind-mount /sysfs to its own /sysfs and make needed sysfs nodes bound to the mount. Does this sound okay? Such process should probably be in its own chrooted environment to function properly. * I haven't really followed the containers thread. Do people generally agree on including it in mainline when we have all the fancy virtualization stuff? Thanks. -- tejun