Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxx):
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxx):
sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/4]: Enable multiple mounts of /dev/pts
[SNIP]
[SNIP again]
Besides, I planned to include legacy ptys virtualization and console
virtualizatin in this namespace, but it seems, that it is not present
in this particular one.
I had been thinking the consoles would have their own ns, since there's
really nothing linking them, but there really is no good reason why
userspace should ever want them separate. So I'm fine with combining
them.
If you want to run something like an X server inside each container
(eg each container holds a desktop session of a different user), then
you need a separate virtual-console namespace for each container.
Ok, but whether the consoles and devpts are unshared with the same
cloneflag or not isn't an issue, right?
true. (I misread your comment.)
(
modulo that we are additional-clone-flags-challenged ...)
Right, plus the fact that the number of clone flags involved becomes
almost obscene. Let's see if Pavel and Suka have a preference, since
one of them seems likely to end up coding it :)
(yes, X per-se needs to provide remote display as opposed to use
local hardware; see http://www.ncl.cs.columbia.edu/research/thinc/)
Nice, by the way :)
Thanks :)
Still off-topic, this is even nicer (also requires ultrafast checkpoint):
http://www.ncl.cs.columbia.edu/publications/sosp2007_dejaview
-serge
thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
