|| ||Kirill Korotaev <dev-AT-sw.ru>|
|| ||"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-AT-xmission.com>, haveblue-AT-us.ibm.com,
devel-AT-openvz.org, serue-AT-us.ibm.com, akpm-AT-osdl.org, sam-AT-vilain.net,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet-AT-ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul-AT-sw.ru>, Stanislav Protassov <st-AT-sw.ru>|
|| ||[RFC] Virtualization steps|
|| ||Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:19:59 +0300|
I think it is quite clear, that without some agreement on all these
virtualization issues, we won't be able to commit anything good to
mainstream. My idea is to gather our efforts to get consensus on most
clean parts of code first and commit them one by one.
The proposal is quite simple. We have 4 parties in this conversation
(maybe more?): IBM guys, OpenVZ, VServer and Eric Biederman. We discuss
the areas which should be considered step by step. Send patches for each
area, discuss, come to some agreement and all 4 parties Sign-Off the
patch. After that it goes to Andrew/Linus. Worth trying?
So far, (correct me if I'm wrong) we concluded that some people don't
want containers as a whole, but want some subsystem namespaces. I
suppose for people who care about containers only it doesn't matter, so
we can proceed with namespaces, yeah?
So the most easy namespaces to discuss I see:
- sys IPC
- network virtualization
- netfilter virtualization
all these were discussed already somehow and looks like there is no
fundamental differencies in our approaches (at least OpenVZ and Eric,
Right now, I suggest to concentrate on first 2 namespaces - utsname and
sysvipc. They are small enough and easy. Lets consider them without
sysctl/proc issues, as those can be resolved later. I sent the patches
for these 2 namespaces to all of you. I really hope for some _good_
critics, so we could work it out quickly.
to post comments)