On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:45:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > Whilst I've got no objection in general to using nsproxy rather than > the container_group object that I introduced in my latest patches,
So are you saying lets (re-)use tsk->nsproxy but also retain 'struct container' to store general per-group state? If so, I think that would address my main concern of redundant/avoidable new pointers in task_struct introduced in the container patches .. -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
