Thanks for the patches (the first was already in). I'll leave
out the change to signed type, though.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> All right, I'm not sure how to go about this - i want to have a conversation
> involving patches without making it seem like I want any of the patches
> pushed yet :) To get this working on s390, I needed the two attached
> patches. Then the testcase under git://git.sr71.net/~hallyn/cr_tests.git
> under cr_tests/pty/ passes with your code.
>
> I'd still like to get a more invasive approach working where we directly
> ask the pty code to create the pty with the right index. I'm playing with
> it right now, but of course having some trouble figuring out what to do
> for the master end and how best to construct a filp to pass to
> the main pty_create function. I'll take a few more stabs and send out
> what I have later (or announce defeat).
>
> There is certainly something to be said for the un-invasiveness of
> your approach (and that it works).
>
> In either case, we will need to figure out how to deal with devpts
> namespaces. Perhaps we separately checkpoint a 'devpts_mnt'. It
> just stores the mountpoint of the mount. At restart, we don't
> recreate those, we just confirm that the mountpoints still exist.
> Then, each pty entry has a ref to its devpts mount, and we use the
> mountpoint to construct ${mountpoint}/ptmx and pass that to
> filp_open() or ptmx_create)( to create the pty entry.
Yes, I was thinking along these lines. I think it's very much
related to the whole mount-namespaces issues; I guess it's time
to address both.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
