Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7][v2] Define clone_with_pids syscall

[Oren Laadan <orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org>]

Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Serge E. Hallyn [serge-A9i7LUbDfNHQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org] wrote:
> | 
> | If a container at pidns level 2, with 1 more pidns underneath it,
> | is checkpointed, then the checkpoint image should only reflect
> | the base and child pidns.  The two ancestor pidns levels should
> | not be there.
> 
> Agree. I meant to say that we would need to specify more than 2
> pids when checkpoint/restarting apps with deeply nested namespaces
> if any :-)

Just like the checkpoint image should only reflect the nesting
from some base down, clone_with_pid() should reflect nesting
from some base down.

(Hmm.. ignore this if it is what you meant already ...)

> 
> Specifying bottom-up may solve the problem I guess.

Perhaps bottom-up is a misleading: I don't care about the order...
I meant that a N size array should affect the last N levels of
the hierarchy (if it is deeper than N).

Oren.