[PATCH] c/r: Add UTS support (v4)
danms at us.ibm.com
Tue Mar 24 08:21:27 PDT 2009
I'm a little confused. Haven't you already reviewed v4? Perhaps you
meant to reply to v5?
OL> Need to test whether cr_hbuf_get() succeeds (while now it's
OL> trivial, in the future it may fail if we change the allocation
Hmm, that's rather unfortunate as it seems to make it messier. I've
long wondered, why not have cr_write_obj() do the allocation (and
check) so that we can avoid the get and put in the caller? I suppose
that introduces an additional copy, but it seems like it would make it
significantly more attractive.
OL> The 'h.parent' fields is gone.
Okay. I need to re-base on your latest. Sorry about that.
OL> If we plan to support multiple uts_ns, then it makes sense to save
OL> the 'objref' value. If you omit the 'objref' because you assume a
OL> single namespace for all for now, then you may also drop the loop
OL> on all tasks (below), for now.
OL> I'm still unhappy with this loop. It isn't necessary now, since we
OL> assume and enforce a single, common namespace among all tasks. It
OL> is unlikely to be useful as is in the future because the format is
OL> likely to change anyway. Even in the (userspace) restart part the
OL> code to read it is in the global section as opposed to per task
OL> section. Is there any reason to keep it ?
I guess I'm not sure why the format would change. Rather, I would
expect it to look something quite like this when we do support nested
namespaces. By having it there, it keeps mktree organized in a
similar way for when we do support it.
However, if you'd rather be very explicit about the unsupported-ness
of it, then I can just completely re-write it to reflect the naive
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms at us.ibm.com
More information about the Containers