Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > > It is good to see these patches are starting to come together. > > Be patient a good review is going to take me a little bit. > > A couple of immediate things I see that would be nice to address before > we aim at merging these patches upstream. > > - Since there are known cases that we still need to convert to use struct > pid can we disable the clone/unshare unless we have the CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL > flag set. And a comment in Kconfig saying we are almost but not quite > there yet. With that in place I would have no problems with the idea > of merging all of the bits needed to have multiple pid namespaces before > we finish making the code pid namespace safe. > > - When we do the rename can we please rename it task_proxy and have the functions > follow that naming. The resource limiting conversation seems to be going in > that direction, and it more general then what we are using now. If we're going to put the resource stuff in, then I agree let's rename. If we stick to this being a namespace proxy (my preference) then calling it nsproxy is more accurate. (I can't keep up with that thread so maybe that's been decided by now :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
