On Tuesday 2010-03-02 16:03, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> I agree with all the points you and Pavel you talked about but I don't >> feel comfortable to have the current process to switch the pid namespace >> because of the process tree hierarchy (what will be the parent of the >> process when you enter the pid namespace for example). > >The answer is - the one, that used to be. I see no problems with it. >Do you?
But perhaps it could be named "namespacefd" instead of nsfd, to reduce potential clashes (because glibc will usually just use the same name when making the syscall available as a C function). _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
