Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>> 3. Cleaner logic for namespace migration: with this approach >>>> one need to save the virtual pid and let global one change; >>>> with Suka's logic this is not clear how to migrate the level >>>> 2 namespace (concerning init to be level 0). >>> This is a very good point. >>> >>> How *would* we migrate the pids at the second level? >> As long as you don't try and restore pids into the initial pid namespace >> it isn't a problem. You just record the pid hierarchy and the pid >> for a task in that hierarchy. There really is nothing special going on >> that should make migration hard. >> >> Or did I miss something? > > Hmm, no, i guess you are right. I was thinking that getting the pid for > a process woudl be done purely from userspace, but I guess along with a > kernel helper to *set* pids, we could also have a kernel helper to get > all pids for all pid namespaces "above" that of the process doing the > checkpoint.
So do you agree that if we migrate a VS we need to migrate the whole VS? > Makes sense. > > thanks, > -serge > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel