Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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 ?

Unfortunately no :( Right now we're focusing on pids and
resource management.

>  -- Daniel
> 

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