Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

>>I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A)
>>without B).

> You misrepresent my approach.  
[...]

> Second I am not trying to just implement a form of virtualizing PIDs.
> Heck I don't intend to virtualize anything.  The kernel has already
> virtualized everything I require.  I want to implement multiple
> instances of the current kernel global namespaces.  All I want is
> to be able to use the same name twice in user space and not have
> a conflict.
if you want not virtualize anything, what is this discussion about? :)
can you provide an URL to your sources? you makes lot's of statements 
about that your network virtualization solution is better/more complete, 
so I'd like to see your solution in whole rather than only words.
Probably this will help.

> I disagree with a struct container simply because I do not see what
> value it happens to bring to the table.  I have yet to see a problem
> that it solves that I have not solved yet.
again, source would help to understand your solution and problem you 
solved and not solved yet.

> In addition I depart from vserver and other implementations in another
> regard.  It is my impression a lot of their work has been done so
> those projects are maintainable outside of the kernel, which makes
> sense as that is where those code bases live.  But I don't think that
> gives the best solution for an in kernel implementation, which is
> what we are implementing.
These soltuions are in kernel implementations actually.


Kirill