Paul Menage wrote: >> In the namespace world when we say container we mean roughly at the level >> of nsproxy and container_group. >> > So you're saying that a task can only be in a single system-wide container. > Nope, we didn't make the mistake of nailing down what a "container" was too far before it is implemented. We talked before about containers-within-containers because, inevitably if you provide a feature you'll end up having to deal with virtualising systems that in turn use that feature. > My patch provides multiple potentially-independent ways of dividing up > the tasks on the system - if the "container" is the set of all > divisions that the process is in, what's an appropriate term for the > sub-units? > namespace, since 2.4.x > That assumes the viewpoint that your terminology is "correct" and > other people's needs "fixing". :-) > Absolutely. Please respect the semantics established so far; changing them adds nothing at the cost of much confusion. > But as I've said I'm not particularly wedded to the term "container" > if that really turned out to be what's blocking acceptance from people > like Andrew or Linus. Do you have a suggestion for a better name? To > me, "process container" seems like the ideal name, since it's an > abstraction that "contains" processes and associates them with some > (subsystem-provided) state. > It's not even really the term, it's the semantics. Sam. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
