Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
That's how OpenVZ sees the pid namespaces.
The main idea is that kernel keeps operating with tasks pid
as it did before, but each task obtains one more pid for each
pid type - the virtual pid. When putting the pid to user or
getting the pid from it kernel operates with the virtual ones.
Just a quick reaction.
- I would very much like to see a minimum of 3 levels of pids,
Why not 4? From my part, I would like to know, why such nesting
is important. We have plain IPC namespaces and nobody cares.
We will have isolated network namespaces, why pids are exception?
Pavel,
I am taking advantage to the opportunity to ask you if you plan to send
a new network namespace patchset ?
Unfortunately no :( Right now we're focusing on pids and
resource management.
Yep, a big part :)
Did you, OpenVZ guys, had time to look at Eric's patchset ?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
