Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > > Merging checkpoints instead might give them the incentive to get >> > > their act together. >> > >> > Knowing how much time it takes to beat CPT back into usable shape every >> > time >> > big kernel rebase is done, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo have every single damn >> > incentive >> > to have CPT mainlined. >> >> So where is the bottleneck? I suspect the effort in having forward ported >> it across 4 major kernel releases in a single year is already larger than >> the technical effort it would take to upstream it. Any unreasonable >> upstream >> resistence/passivity you are bumping into? > > People were busy with netns/containers stuff and OpenVZ/Virtuozzo bugs.
Yes. Getting the namespaces particularly the network namespace finished has consumed a lot of work. Then we have a bunch of people helping with ill conceived patches that seem to wear out the patience of people upstream. Al, Greg kh, Linus. The whole recent ressurection of the question of we should have a clone with pid syscall. Eric _______________________________________________ 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
