[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081112190655.GB8233@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:06:55 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, daniel@...ac.com,
Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>, clg@...ibm.com,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, sukadev@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Signals to cinit
Quoting Sukadev Bhattiprolu (sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> Serge E. Hallyn [serue@...ibm.com] wrote:
> | Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> | > > | Perhaps we can start with something like the patch below. Not that I like
> | > > | it very much though. We should really place this code under
> | > > | CONFIG_I_DO_CARE_ABOUT_NAMESPACES ;)
> | > >
> | > > CONFIG_PID_NS ?
> | >
> | > Ah yes, we have it ;)
> |
> | Except I believe all distros at this point enable CONFIG_PID_NS, so
> | I'm not sure it's the right thing to use.
>
> But if they do enable CONFIG_PID_NS they would want the signals to
> behave correctly ? IIUC, the reason we want to the hide the code
> is that it is not clean i.e if its not experimental or error-prone,
> are there other reasons someone with CONFIG_PID_NS=y want to hide it ?
I was going to argue yes, but again following my reasoning to its
logical conclusion leads us to a config parameter being bad anyway.
So yeah, never mind.
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists