From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422779AbXCGRyZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:54:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422957AbXCGRyI (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:54:08 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:60656 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422746AbXCGRx6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:53:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:30:55 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Paul Menage , ebiederm@xmission.com, sam@vilain.net, 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! Message-ID: <20070307180055.GC17151@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:46AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation. I don't think that is what http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/426 conveyed! > They just didn't want you calling them containers. Yes that too. > > Anyway, summarizing on "why nsproxy", the main point (I think) is about > > using existing abstraction in the kernel. s/abstraction/"implementation detail" then :) > But nsproxy is not an abstraction, it's an implementation > detail/optimization. -- Regards, vatsa