On 3/7/07, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Menage wrote: > >> In the namespace world when we say container we mean roughly at the level > >> of nsproxy and container_group. > >> > > So you're saying that a task can only be in a single system-wide container. > > > > Nope, we didn't make the mistake of nailing down what a "container" was > too far before it is implemented. We talked before about > containers-within-containers because, inevitably if you provide a > feature you'll end up having to deal with virtualising systems that in > turn use that feature.
Sure, my aproach allows containers hierarchically as children of other containers too. > > > My patch provides multiple potentially-independent ways of dividing up > > the tasks on the system - if the "container" is the set of all > > divisions that the process is in, what's an appropriate term for the > > sub-units? > > > > namespace, since 2.4.x > > > That assumes the viewpoint that your terminology is "correct" and > > other people's needs "fixing". :-) > > > > Absolutely. Please respect the semantics established so far; changing > them adds nothing at the cost of much confusion. But "namespace" has well-established historical semantics too - a way of changing the mappings of local names to global objects. This doesn't describe things liek resource controllers, cpusets, resource monitoring, etc. Trying to extend the well-known term namespace to refer to things that aren't namespaces isn't a useful approach, IMO. 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
