OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [netns] sysfs: issues porting shadow directories on top of 2.6.21-mm2
Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support. [message #19485 is a reply to message #19479] Mon, 30 July 2007 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Tejun Heo is currently offline  Tejun Heo
Messages: 184
Registered: November 2006
Senior Member
Hello, Kirill.

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> Imho then OpenOVZ approach with multiple sysfs trees is better.
> it allows to use cached dentries with moultiple sysfs mounts
> each having different view.
> It also allows to hide hw-related entries and events from the containers
> and has quite little modifications in the code.

I thought something like supermount plus some twists or fuse based sysfs
proxy would fit better.  Dunno whether or how uevent and polling stuff
can work that way tho.  Note that sysfs no longer keeps dentries and
inodes pinned.  It might make the shared dentry stuff harder.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
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: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support.
Next Topic: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Implement sysfs manged shadow directory support.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Oct 26 17:26:22 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08928 seconds