About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Herbert P÷tzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Wed 13 Aug 2003 - 00:55:14 BST


On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:46:05PM +0300, Alex Lyashkov wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2003 17:13, Sam Stickland wrote:
> > I believe that /proc needs virtualizing, and that that is yet to be done
> > (Maybe under Alex's patches?).
> >
> > Sam
> >
> My last official patch have same problem.
> I work on it and in near future been publshed new version with implemets
> private disk namespace.

so my suggestion using a cloned namespace has
finally found some ground ... ;)

hey Alex, we should have a short private conversation
about placing the ctx in the fs inodes (as your
patch already does) and utilizing 32bit uid/gid ...
maybe we could agree on a compatible and optimal
solution ...

let me know what you think ...

> Implement private disk namespace will be allow safety use mount/umount
> inside vps, because private mount tree are created.

sounds good ... have you had a look at my
virtualization patches?

best,
Herbert

> --
> With best regards,
> Alex


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Wed 13 Aug 2003 - 01:10:45 BST by hypermail 2.1.3