On Saturday 09 December 2006 09:35, Herbert Poetzl wrote:

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
Herbert Poetzl [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

quoted

Herbert Poetzl [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho 
and waste our time instead of doing things.

quoted

quoted

well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement
something ... not the other way round, and then start
fixing up the mess ...

Well we need a bit of both.

hmm, are 'we' in a hurry here?

until recently, 'Linux' (mainline) didn't even want
to hear about OS Level virtualization, now there
is a rush to quickly get 'something' in, not knowing
or caring if it is usable at all?

It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.

hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the
IPC namespace then, not that I think it is broken
(well, maybe it is, we do not know yet)

Herbert,

you know that this code is used in our product. And in its turn, our
product is tested internally and by a community. We have no reports about
bugs in this code. If you have to say more than just "something to say",
please, say it.

quoted

quoted

I think there are a lot of 'potential users' for
this kind of virtualization, and so 'we' can test
almost all aspects outside of mainline, and once
we know the stuff works as expected, then we can
integrate it ...

the UTS namespace was something 'we all' had already
implemented in this (or a very similar) way, and in
one or two interations, it should actually work as 
expected. nevertheless, it was one of the simplest
spaces ...

we do not yet know the details for the IPC namespace,
as IPC is not that easy to check as UTS, and 'we'
haven't gotten real world feedback on that yet ...

We are very dependent upon all stakeholders including yourself 
to review, test and comment upon this infrastructure as it is 
proposed and merged. If something is proposed which will not 
suit your requirements then it is important that we hear about 
it, in detail, at the earliest possible time.

okay, good to hear that I'm still considered a stakeholder 

will try to focus the feedback and cc as many folks
as possible, as it seems that some feedback is lost
on the way upstream ...

best,
Herbert

quoted

Thanks.

-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry.