On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 05:27:59AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Herbert Poetzl <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:59:24PM -0800, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] Initialize struct pid_nr for swapper. > >> > >> Statically initialize a struct pid_nr for the swapper process. > > > > does that actually satisfy procfs needs too, or > > just the abstract internal references? > > > > because if it is enough to make procfs happy, this > > would be a viable solution for the lightweight guest > > case (as fake init process) too, which doesn't require > > a blend through functionality anymore, and would allow > > to make the pid isolation complete without wasting > > any resources ... > > Herbert I'm not quite certain what you are asking but > largely I think the answer is yes. Making procfs work > on top of something like this patchset is pretty straight > forward. okay, then please lets make sure that this actually works, because I think it might solve most of the lightweight guest issues the suggested pid spaces would introduce ... I tried that some time back, but the procfs really provides _a lot_ of deep linked details for each process, and I postponed that approach back then when I realized that I would have to fill in quite a lot of static data to make procfs happy (with a static inizialized fake init) TIA, Herbert > Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
