On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:35 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > So task 5 created its mm_struct, task 6 is > supposed to use the same mm_struct, so it finds that out from the > context? I wonder whether that would start to become complicated > when checkpointing nested containers. It also doesn't fit well with the nsproxy idea. It would be very hard to tell which nsproxies should be shared until the entire restart has been completed and we've been able to figure out which ones are the same. This is just a coding/implementation issue, but I think it does reveal a difference in ideology between these patches and the way that the kernel works up until now. :) -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
