On pią, gru 19, 2008 at 04:23:04 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:> Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):> > (cc containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)> > > > Please don't send patches via private email! My apologies. > I trust (since you're not removing it) that the restriction that> the target cgroup be empty is not a problem? Sigh, good catch. I'm building my lxc-based environment slowly and I'monly testing the most basic stuff currently, so I'd bug you about iteventually. Frankly, I don't understand the reason behind these restrictions andfeel like I'm missing some important piece of a puzzle. In my tests allthe tasks in question are living in the same namespace (though it won'talways be so), so I'd guess I should be able to move the tasks freelybetween cgroups. Why exactly does the target cgroup have to be empty? Also, should we remember the task->nsproxy pointer in the cgroup dataand ignore hierarchy if it matches? I guess it would be safe to storethe raw pointer without refcounting it in any way as we'd neverdereference it (could keep it as uintptr_t to reinforce the idea) butonly compare with another pointer. Does that make any sense? Or should I simply mount the cgroup fs withoutthe ns subsystem and forget the whole thing? What exactly do I lose bydoing so? > Also, 'rule 1' in the comment above ns_can_attach should be modified> accordingly (s/child/descendant). Indeed. Will resend after receiving some enlightenment about the above. Thank you for your comments. Best regards, Grzegorz Nosek_______________________________________________Containers mailing listContainers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
