Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Dave Hansen wrote:
>  On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>>One thing I don't particularly like is some of the naming. To me "vps" 
>>doesn't sound particularly generic or logical. I realize that it probably 
>>makes perfect sense to you (and I assume it just means "virtual private 
>>servers"), but especially if you see patches 1-3 to really be independent 
>>of any "actual" virtualization code that is totally generic, I'd actually 
>>prefer a less specialized name.
> 
> 
> I just did a global s/vps/container/ and it looks pretty reasonable, at
> least from my point of view.

I would have chosen the much shorter "box" or "jar", but that's just me :)


> "tsk->owner_container"  That makes it sound like a pointer to the "task
> owner's container".  How about "owning_container"?  The "container
> owning this task".  Or, maybe just "container"?

slip 'parent' in there...


> Any particular reason for the "u32 id" in the vps_info struct as opposed
> to one of the more generic types?  Do we want to abstract this one in
> the same way we do pid_t?
> 
> The "host" in "host_container_info" doesn't mean much to me.  Though, I
> guess it has some context in the UML space.  Would "init_container_info"
> or "root_container_info" be more descriptive?

probably

	Jeff