On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:46AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
quoted text > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation.
I don't think that is what
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/426 conveyed!
quoted text > They just didn't want you calling them containers.
Yes that too.
quoted text > > Anyway, summarizing on "why nsproxy", the main point (I think) is about
> > using existing abstraction in the kernel.
s/abstraction/"implementation detail" then :)
quoted text > But nsproxy is not an abstraction, it's an implementation
> detail/optimization.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka container... , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , (Wed Mar 7, 2:00 pm)