On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:48:09 -0500
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This compiles and boots, but is not intended for inclusion in -mm (yet),
> just as an RFC for the naming scheme to fix the bug Andrew pointed out.
>
> Seem ok overall?
>
> thanks,
> -serge
>
> >From 8e9b972f7482415777e982d3bc9a0d55cbaf862b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:32:15 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] containers: improve automatic container naming
>
> The automatic naming of containers created using container_clone()
> is currently broken (not protected from wraparound) and inconvenient.
>
> Add a per-container counter for use in naming children of the container.
> Before two unshares in a row by one process, and a third in another,
> would result in
>
> /node1/node2
> /node3
>
> The current scheme should result in
>
> /node1/node1
> /node2
>
> Also, keep a hash table populated with used names, to protect
> against counter wrap-around.
>
> ...
>
> include/linux/container.h | 8 +++
> kernel/container.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
gad, what's all this stuff?
I think an IDR tree would get you what you're after in much less code.
Although it means that container IDs would get recycled quickly across a
remove+add.
Be aware that there are IDR enhancements in Greg's driver tree (and hence
in -mm) which are relevant to this application.
> + if (cont->auto_cnt_set) {
Can we please stop using "cnt" and "cont" to refer to containers? Let's
use "container", OK?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
