* Herbert Poetzl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:38:10PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Ah, interesting... That means anything that's needed by vshelper that's > > not in those paths on most systems is a candidate for being hard-coded. > > Does much fall into this category? Another option would be to have > > vshelper read a config file which specifies it's path, I kind of like > > that, personally. Is vshelper called much by the kernel? > > currently no, just on reboot/reset/halt and in near > future on context creation and destruction, but it > might become used more often if we decide to route > kernel fs requests through it (e.g. proc) ...
hrmmm, why does that sound like a bad idea to me? But then, I don't
really know what the purpose of vshelper was anyway and why it's not
done in the kernel already. Seems like it'd be a rather slow way to
access /proc stuff, which is rather concerning, and if you did all I/O
through it you'd end up with UML-like speeds I'd think. ;)
> testing util-vserver (alpha) and reporting back
> to enrico (regarding stability and or improvements)
> will probably help there ...
I'll be setting up a bunch more vservers soon, I'll be sure to provide
all kinds of comments about how that goes. ;)
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [email protected] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
