Re: Progress of containers at 2.6.32/33?

Re: Progress of containers at 2.6.32/33?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org):
> 
> 2.6.32 is likely to be used widely so I expect everyone's out of tree
> patches to be updated.  As a metric to figuring out which things have
> worked and which things have not I would like ask all of those who are
> maintaining out of tree container patches to give some feedback on
> what code they have been able to remove from their patchsets when
> using the latest kernel, and which patches persist.
> 
> I have been in some conversations lately that indicate that we have
> some tremendous short comings in the work that has gone on in the
> public tree.  So I am asking now so we can guage where we are at
> as a community.
> 
> Eric

Hey Eric,

can you give some specific examples which came out of those conversations?
Because I'm not quite sure what type of info you're looking for (and I
don't think I'm the only one).

By 'short comings in the work' do you mean things being addressed in
private trees, or shortcomings which have become apparent which are not
yet being addressed?

-serge

Re: Progress of containers at 2.6.32/33?

[Daniel Lezcano]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 2.6.32 is likely to be used widely so I expect everyone's out of tree
> patches to be updated.  As a metric to figuring out which things have
> worked and which things have not I would like ask all of those who are
> maintaining out of tree container patches to give some feedback on
> what code they have been able to remove from their patchsets when
> using the latest kernel, and which patches persist.
>
> I have been in some conversations lately that indicate that we have
> some tremendous short comings in the work that has gone on in the
> public tree.  So I am asking now so we can guage where we are at
> as a community.
>   
Do you consider the checkpoint / restart is part of the container progress ?

I am asking that because there are some cases where the container should 
be more virtualized if the CR is to be take into account.
For example, the network devices index is not virtualized in a 
container, this is not a problem without the CR. But with it, we won't 
support any application binding to a device or using a device index.