From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kirill Korotaev Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support. Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:58:23 +0400 Message-ID: <46A9CFCF.5000008@sw.ru> 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> <46A85485.40502@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46A85485.40502-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@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: Tejun Heo Cc: Linux Containers , Greg KH , Dave Hansen , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. at least on checkpoint/restart names should be restored as is and conflicts are unavoidable. this includes ifindex as well by the way. > * 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, Kirill