On 3/7/07, Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:32:07PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > > I'm not really sure that I see the value of having this be part of > > > nsproxy rather than the previous independent container (and > > > container_group) structure. > > > > *shrug* > > > > I wrote the patch mainly to see whether the stuff container folks (Sam > > Vilain > > et al) were complaining abt (that container structure abstraction > > inside the kernel is redundant/unnecessary) made sense or not. > > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation.
No, Sam was saying that nsproxy should be the object that all resource controllers hook off. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
