On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:45:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > Whilst I've got no objection in general to using nsproxy rather than > the container_group object that I introduced in my latest patches, So are you saying lets (re-)use tsk->nsproxy but also retain 'struct container' to store general per-group state? If so, I think that would address my main concern of redundant/avoidable new pointers in task_struct introduced in the container patches .. -- Regards, vatsa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
