Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:

> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> We are trying to create a roadmap for the next year of
>> 'container' development, to be reported to the upcoming kernel
>> summit.  Containers here is a bit of an ambiguous term, so we are
>> taking it to mean all of:
>> 
>> 	1. namespaces
>> 	2. process containers
>> 	3. checkpoint/restart
>> 
>> Naturally we can't actually predict what will and won't be worked on,
>> let alone what will be going upstream.  But the following is a list
>> of features which it seems rvseasonable to think might be worked on
>> next year:
>> 
>>        1. completion of ongoing namespaces
>>                pid namespace
>>                net namespace
>
> I'm not sure if this has been said already :
>
> At OLS, we had a talk with denis, pavel, eric, daniel, benjamin and others,
> and we agreed to cooperate on eric's netns patchset which seems to satisfy 
> most of the stake holders :
> 	* openvz
> 	* ibm
> 	* eric (hopefully :)
> 	* planetlab (heavy users of linux-vserver) 
> 	* hp (also interested)
> 	* google (?) 
>
> the planetlab team successfully included eric's netns patchset in the 
> linux-vserver patch and had good results with it.
>
> the following tasks were discussed : 
>
> 	* improve the patchset to make it acceptable by the netdev community
> 	* share a netns git tree 
> 	* share some tests framework all parties have been developing 
> 	  independently.
>
> Are we in sync ? I'm sure there are more interesting stuff to be said :)  

Roughly.  Basically only the head of the tree (possibly a separate tree in
and of itself ) would be the candidates for merging we would actively
be working on.

> We're looking for a place to host the netns git tree while we are working on 
> it, which means we will need first a federator for the pachset. Eric declined
> as he is too busy. Any proposals ?

To some extent.  I get distracted, so I cannot provide routine
maintenance.  While we are actively merging I intend to do some of the
work, I'm just not likely to do a lot of out of tree keeping up with
the latest tree work.

I expect I will be actively involved while we get the core
infrastructure merged.

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

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> We are trying to create a roadmap for the next year of
>>> 'container' development, to be reported to the upcoming kernel
>>> summit.  Containers here is a bit of an ambiguous term, so we are
>>> taking it to mean all of:
>>>
>>> 	1. namespaces
>>> 	2. process containers
>>> 	3. checkpoint/restart
>>>
>>> Naturally we can't actually predict what will and won't be worked on,
>>> let alone what will be going upstream.  But the following is a list
>>> of features which it seems rvseasonable to think might be worked on
>>> next year:
>>>
>>>        1. completion of ongoing namespaces
>>>                pid namespace
>>>                net namespace
>> I'm not sure if this has been said already :
>>
>> At OLS, we had a talk with denis, pavel, eric, daniel, benjamin and others,
>> and we agreed to cooperate on eric's netns patchset which seems to satisfy 
>> most of the stake holders :

With a small thing, though.

We have agreed that we should submit infrastructure pieces one by one,
like daniel propose. These pieces are common for all approaches and they
 will increase the probability of the inclusion of the main piece. We
also agree, that the net namespace management mechanism should be the
same for all containers.
As for approach, we have agreed that we MUST have a second option as
there is a great probability that Dave Miller will reject Eric patches
again and again.

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

"Denis V. Lunev" <den@sw.ru> writes:

> With a small thing, though.
>
> We have agreed that we should submit infrastructure pieces one by one,
> like daniel propose. These pieces are common for all approaches and they
>  will increase the probability of the inclusion of the main piece. We
> also agree, that the net namespace management mechanism should be the
> same for all containers.

> As for approach, we have agreed that we MUST have a second option as
> there is a great probability that Dave Miller will reject Eric patches
> again and again.

Roughly.  Although the way you put it is bleak.  What you are talking
about is the normal patch review process.

One thing I do want to emphasize is that we want to do as much review
among ourselves as possible, so we don't waste Dave's time reviewing
or sorting out issues we can sort out ourselves.

However David Miller and the other networking guys are quite likely to
have issues we have never considered. (It is the nature of the beast).

Therefore we should start at simple and as straight forward as we can
and fix it from there.  If those objections happen to fall where we
have already considered them we can easily handle them, because we already
have the code.  If those objections fall somewhere else it will obviously take
us a few more days.

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