Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 00/10] Containers(V10): Generic Process Containers

Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-08T18:08:54Z

Quoting Paul Menage (menage@google.com):
> On 6/8/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> >
> >The problem is container_clone() doesn't call ->create explicitly, it
> >does vfs_mkdir. So we have no real way of passing in clone_task.
> >
>
> Good point.
>
> Looking at vfs_mkdir(), it's pretty simple, and really the only bits
> that apply to container_clone() are the call to ->mkdir() and possibly
> the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). (I think that's maybe how you did it
> originally?)

Yes it was.

> Maybe it would make sense to just call container_create() at that
> point directly, which would allow us more parameters.

I do fear that that could become a maintenance nightmare. For instance
right now there's the call to fsnotify_mkdir(). Other such hooks might
be placed at vfs_mkdir, which we'd then likely want to have placed in
our container_mkdir() and container_clone() fns. And of course
may_create() is static inline in fs/namei.c. It's trivial, but still if
it changes we'd want to change the version in kernel/container.c as
well.

What would be the main advantage of doing it this way? Do you consider
the extra subys->auto_setup() hook to be avoidable bloat?

thanks,
-serge