Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>   
>> Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org> writes:
>>
>>     
>>> That's how OpenVZ sees the pid namespaces.
>>>
>>> The main idea is that kernel keeps operating with tasks pid
>>> as it did before, but each task obtains one more pid for each
>>> pid type - the virtual pid. When putting the pid to user or
>>> getting the pid from it kernel operates with the virtual ones.
>>>       
>> Just a quick reaction. 
>>
>> - I would very much like to see a minimum of 3 levels of pids,
>>     
>
> Why not 4? From my part, I would like to know, why such nesting
> is important. We have plain IPC namespaces and nobody cares.
> We will have isolated network namespaces, why pids are exception?
>   
Pavel,

I am taking advantage to the opportunity to ask you if you plan to send 
a new network namespace patchset ?

  -- Daniel
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers