On pią, gru 19, 2008 at 04:23:04 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Andrew Morton (a...@linux-foundation.org): > > (cc contain...@lists.osdl.org) > > > > Please don't send patches via private email!
My apologies. > I trust (since you're not removing it) that the restriction that > the target cgroup be empty is not a problem? Sigh, good catch. I'm building my lxc-based environment slowly and I'm only testing the most basic stuff currently, so I'd bug you about it eventually. Frankly, I don't understand the reason behind these restrictions and feel like I'm missing some important piece of a puzzle. In my tests all the tasks in question are living in the same namespace (though it won't always be so), so I'd guess I should be able to move the tasks freely between cgroups. Why exactly does the target cgroup have to be empty? Also, should we remember the task->nsproxy pointer in the cgroup data and ignore hierarchy if it matches? I guess it would be safe to store the raw pointer without refcounting it in any way as we'd never dereference it (could keep it as uintptr_t to reinforce the idea) but only compare with another pointer. Does that make any sense? Or should I simply mount the cgroup fs without the ns subsystem and forget the whole thing? What exactly do I lose by doing so? > Also, 'rule 1' in the comment above ns_can_attach should be modified > accordingly (s/child/descendant). Indeed. Will resend after receiving some enlightenment about the above. Thank you for your comments. Best regards, Grzegorz Nosek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
