"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > Except that unless we mandate that pid1 in any namespace can't exit, and >> > put that feature off until later, we can't not address it. >> >> What if we mandate that pid1 is the last process to exit? > > I think people have complained about that in the past for application > containers, but I really don't see where it hurts anything. > > Cedric, Herbert, did one of you think it would be bad? Sure. As an extension I don't have a problem with the notion, of allowing pid1 to exit before others. But if it makes things harder on us I don't want to support it, at least not initially. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
