Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:18:21 +0300 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction |
| |
>>I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A) >>without B).
> You misrepresent my approach. [...]
> Second I am not trying to just implement a form of virtualizing PIDs. > Heck I don't intend to virtualize anything. The kernel has already > virtualized everything I require. I want to implement multiple > instances of the current kernel global namespaces. All I want is > to be able to use the same name twice in user space and not have > a conflict. if you want not virtualize anything, what is this discussion about? :) can you provide an URL to your sources? you makes lot's of statements about that your network virtualization solution is better/more complete, so I'd like to see your solution in whole rather than only words. Probably this will help.
> I disagree with a struct container simply because I do not see what > value it happens to bring to the table. I have yet to see a problem > that it solves that I have not solved yet. again, source would help to understand your solution and problem you solved and not solved yet.
> In addition I depart from vserver and other implementations in another > regard. It is my impression a lot of their work has been done so > those projects are maintainable outside of the kernel, which makes > sense as that is where those code bases live. But I don't think that > gives the best solution for an in kernel implementation, which is > what we are implementing. These soltuions are in kernel implementations actually.
Kirill
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |