Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > Serge E. Hallyn [serue@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@xxxxxxxxxx): > | > > | Perhaps we can start with something like the patch below. Not that I like > | > > | it very much though. We should really place this code under > | > > | CONFIG_I_DO_CARE_ABOUT_NAMESPACES ;) > | > > > | > > CONFIG_PID_NS ? > | > > | > Ah yes, we have it ;) > | > | Except I believe all distros at this point enable CONFIG_PID_NS, so > | I'm not sure it's the right thing to use. > > But if they do enable CONFIG_PID_NS they would want the signals to > behave correctly ? IIUC, the reason we want to the hide the code > is that it is not clean i.e if its not experimental or error-prone, > are there other reasons someone with CONFIG_PID_NS=y want to hide it ? I was going to argue yes, but again following my reasoning to its logical conclusion leads us to a config parameter being bad anyway. So yeah, never mind. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
