OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction [message #1400 is a reply to message #1384] Tue, 07 February 2006 22:43 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Sam Vilain is currently offline  Sam Vilain
Messages: 73
Registered: February 2006
Member
Eric W. Biederman wrote [note: quoting sections out of order]:
> Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> writes:
>>Let's compare approaches of patchsets before the patchsets themselves.
>>It seems to be, should we:
>> A) make a general form of virtualising PIDs, and hope this assists
>> later virtualisation efforts (Eric's patch)
>>I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A)
>>without B).
> You misrepresent my approach.

ok, after reading more of your post, agreed.

> What user interface to export is a debate worth having.

This is the bit that needs a long period of prototyping and experimental
use IMHO. So in essence, we're agreeing on that point.

> First there is a huge commonality in the code bases between the
> different implementations and I have already gotten preliminary
> acceptance from the vserver developers, that my approach is sane. The
> major difference is what user interface does the kernel export,
> and I posted my user interface.
> Second I am not trying to just implement a form of virtualizing PIDs.
> Heck I don't intend to virtualize anything. The kernel has already
> virtualized everything I require. I want to implement multiple
> instances of the current kernel global namespaces. All I want is
> to be able to use the same name twice in user space and not have
> a conflict.

Right, well, I think our approaches might have more in common than
I previously thought.

Indeed, it seems that at least one of the features of Linux-VServer I am
preparing for consideration for inclusion into Linus' tree are your work
:-).

> Beyond getting multiple instance of all of the kernel namespaces
> (which is the hard requirement for migration) my approach is to
> see what is needed for projects like vserver and vps and see how
> their needs can be met as well.

ok, but the question is - doesn't this just constitute a refactoring
once the stable virtualisation code is in?

I'm just a bit nervous about trying to
refactor-approach-and-concepts-as-we-go.

But look, I'll take a closer look at your patches, and see if I can
merge with you anyhow. Thanks for the git repo!

Sam.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Versioning issue on vzquota-3.0.0-2
Next Topic: [NET][IA64] Unaligned access in sk_run_filter
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Oct 09 11:14:22 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09744 seconds