Hello, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > How close are we to the point where we can get mount sysfs multiple > times and get multiple dentry trees with different super blocks?
Yeah, that sounds much better. We only have to pay attention to getting sysfs_dirent tree correct. The rest can be done by just looking up the correct sysfs_dirent in sysfs_lookup(). We would still need to pin all shadows to keep sysfs_get_dentry() working. > That really does sound like the right way to go. Especially as it > simplifies the monitoring of containers. If you want to watch what > the view looks like in some container your bind mount his sysfs and > look at that. > > If we can do that the dcache side at least will be beautiful. And > with a little care we may be able to reduce the work to a special case > in lookup, some extra handling to mark directories as belonging only > to a certain mount of sysfs. > > If we can find something that is stupid and simple I'm all for that. Amen. > To reach the no-kobj utopia we may also need a special device_migrate > that is a super set of device_rename (because sometimes we need to > rename devices when we move them between namespaces). One thing I'm curious about is which semantic is appropriate behavior when a node is migrated from one namespace to another - renaming or deactivation followed by activation in new name space. I guess it doesn't really matter. > So are we close to having a sysfs that we can have multiple super > blocks for? Sorry but I dunno. It sounds much more appealing than other approaches tho. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
