From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Tue 28 Dec 2004 - 01:51:44 GMT
* Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:38:10PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Ah, interesting... That means anything that's needed by vshelper that's
> > not in those paths on most systems is a candidate for being hard-coded.
> > Does much fall into this category? Another option would be to have
> > vshelper read a config file which specifies it's path, I kind of like
> > that, personally. Is vshelper called much by the kernel?
> currently no, just on reboot/reset/halt and in near
> future on context creation and destruction, but it
> might become used more often if we decide to route
> kernel fs requests through it (e.g. proc) ...
hrmmm, why does that sound like a bad idea to me? But then, I don't
really know what the purpose of vshelper was anyway and why it's not
done in the kernel already. Seems like it'd be a rather slow way to
access /proc stuff, which is rather concerning, and if you did all I/O
through it you'd end up with UML-like speeds I'd think. ;)
> testing util-vserver (alpha) and reporting back
> to enrico (regarding stability and or improvements)
> will probably help there ...
I'll be setting up a bunch more vservers soon, I'll be sure to provide
all kinds of comments about how that goes. ;)
Vserver mailing list