On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> Paul Menage wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to >> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31? >> >> >> > >> > Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that >> > the namespace support in mainline was robust enough yet for people to >> > use them for virtual servers in production environments. > > I don't know where the bar is for 'production environments', but I'd > have to claim that pid namespaces are there... Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months back). Pid namespaces are useful for process migration (which is still under development) or virtual servers (for which user namespaces are pretty much essential). So I'm not sure quite what you'd use pid namespaces for yet. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
