From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753509AbXDCQDj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:03:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753511AbXDCQDj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:03:39 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:60248 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753509AbXDCQDi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:03:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 21:40:58 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , menage@google.com, akpm@osdl.org, pj@sgi.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, rohitseth@google.com, devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem Message-ID: <20070403161058.GG2456@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070212085105.170265000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070331024722.GA808@in.ibm.com> <20070402140938.GF17710@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070402142727.GF2456@in.ibm.com> <20070403153220.GA24946@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070403153220.GA24946@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 Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:32:20AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > But frankly I don't know where we stand right now wrt the containers > patches. Do most people want to go with Vatsa's latest version moving > containers into nsproxy? > Has any other development been going on? I have another update to the rcfs patches more or less ready to go. I hope to post them out this week. Note that from user or controller perspective, there should be very little difference between the two patches. rcfs is, I would say, same as container patches to the extent of 70-80%. The rest of the difference is mainly avoiding a new pointer in task_struct and new structures to represent a task_group. -- Regards, vatsa