H. Peter Anvin [hpa@xxxxxxxxx] wrote: > sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I had the new ptmx node only in 'multi-mount' mode initially. But if users >> want the multi-mount semantics, /dev/ptmx must be a symlink. If its a >> symlink, >> we break in the single-mount case (which does not have the ptmx node and >> we don't support mknod in pts). > > True, but changing that is still a configuration change (adding newns to > the fstab); it's not that much more work to change whatever else needs to > change. Hmm, so, single and multi-mount don't coexist ? i.e some are multi-mounts while others are single-mounts. The way I looked at is that even if a distro has not yet updated the startup script (fstab), we could use the multi-mount. Maybe a container startup script could change /dev/ptmx to symlink and both types of mounts can work simultaneously. Would that be unnecessary ? > > I personally don't expect a whole lot of back-and-forth; I suspect people > will switch from the legacy model to the newns model mostly as part of a > distro upgrade. > >>>> I'm open to being convinced and the >>>> other problems with that code are more pressing. >> Yes, I will look at the latest in linux-next and the ->driver_data >> approach. >> But just to confirm, we do want try and keep single-mount semantics. > > Certainly for several years at least. Ok. > > -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
