[PATCH] [RFC] c/r: Add UTS support

[Dan Smith]

NL> I'd like there to be some discussion about this, because namespace
NL> creation seems like a significant addition to the semantics of
NL> restart as I understand it.

Indeed.

NL> Is namespace creation during restart unavoidable, or merely
NL> desirable?  Is there a case for requiring the user to provide a
NL> suitable namespace environment before attempting restart?

Information about the namespaces has to be saved at checkpoint time no
matter what, right?  I guess I don't see any compelling reason to not
have the restart operation replicate the environment of the original
process.  Otherwise we require userspace to read and interpret the
checkpoint stream and selectively feed the bits that the kernel is
responsible for to the kernel and process the rest itself (or have the
kernel ignore those records).

What's the argument for depending on userspace to set this up?

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms at us.ibm.com