Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Pavel Emelianov wrote: >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >>> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
