From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751962AbXCHAf5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:35:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751952AbXCHAf5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:35:57 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:50011 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751935AbXCHAfz (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:35:55 -0500 Message-ID: <45EF5A62.8000103@vilain.net> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:35:46 +1300 From: Sam Vilain User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060521) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Menage Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , akpm@linux-foundation.org, pj@sgi.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, containers@lists.osdl.org, winget@google.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070307180055.GC17151@in.ibm.com> <20070307205846.GB7010@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830703071320ib687019h34d2e66c4abc3794@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830703071518y715ecdb2y33752a6e25b5ecdb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830703071518y715ecdb2y33752a6e25b5ecdb@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Menage wrote: >> In the namespace world when we say container we mean roughly at the level >> of nsproxy and container_group. >> > So you're saying that a task can only be in a single system-wide container. > Nope, we didn't make the mistake of nailing down what a "container" was too far before it is implemented. We talked before about containers-within-containers because, inevitably if you provide a feature you'll end up having to deal with virtualising systems that in turn use that feature. > My patch provides multiple potentially-independent ways of dividing up > the tasks on the system - if the "container" is the set of all > divisions that the process is in, what's an appropriate term for the > sub-units? > namespace, since 2.4.x > That assumes the viewpoint that your terminology is "correct" and > other people's needs "fixing". :-) > Absolutely. Please respect the semantics established so far; changing them adds nothing at the cost of much confusion. > But as I've said I'm not particularly wedded to the term "container" > if that really turned out to be what's blocking acceptance from people > like Andrew or Linus. Do you have a suggestion for a better name? To > me, "process container" seems like the ideal name, since it's an > abstraction that "contains" processes and associates them with some > (subsystem-provided) state. > It's not even really the term, it's the semantics. Sam.