public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	xemul@sw.ru, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, serue@us.ibm.com,
	sam@vilain.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Virtualization of UTS
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:35:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <442449F8.4050808@sw.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m18xqzk6cy.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>

>> This patch introduces utsname namespace in system, which allows to have
>> different utsnames on the host.
>> Introduces config option CONFIG_UTS_NS and uts_namespace structure for this.
> 
> Ok.  It looks like we need to resolve the sysctl issues before we merge
> either patch, into the stable kernel.
I disagree with you. Right now we can have sysctl and proc for init 
namespaces only.
And when sysctl and proc are virtualized somehow, we can fix all these.
I simply don't expect /proc and sysctl to be done quickly. As we have 
very different approaches. And there is no any consensus. Why not to 
commit working/agreed parts then?

> We also need to discuss the system call interface, as without one
> the functionality is unusable :)
I also don't see why it can be separated. There is an API in namespaces, 
and how it is mapped into syscalls is another question. At least it 
doesn't prevent us from commiting virtualization itself, agree?

Thanks,
Kirill

  reply	other threads:[~2006-03-24 19:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-24 17:23 [RFC] Virtualization patches for IPC/UTS. 2nd step Kirill Korotaev
2006-03-24 17:31 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Virtualization of UTS Kirill Korotaev
2006-03-24 19:09   ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-03-24 19:35     ` Kirill Korotaev [this message]
2006-03-24 19:50       ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-03-27 19:40       ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-03-24 20:28   ` James Morris
2006-03-28  3:45   ` Sam Vilain
2006-03-24 17:35 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Virtualization of IPC Kirill Korotaev
2006-03-24 19:13   ` Dave Hansen
2006-03-24 21:27     ` Herbert Poetzl
2006-03-28  5:26       ` Sam Vilain
2006-03-24 20:09   ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-03-27 15:33   ` Serge E. Hallyn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=442449F8.4050808@sw.ru \
    --to=dev@sw.ru \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=devel@openvz.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sam@vilain.net \
    --cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    --cc=xemul@sw.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox