Quoting Richard Weinberger (richard.weinber...@gmail.com): > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Then don't use a container to build such a thing, or fix the build > > scripts to not do that :) > > I second this. > To me it looks like some folks try to (ab)use Linux containers > for purposes where KVM would much better fit in. > Please don't put more complexity into containers. They are already > horrible complex > and error prone.
I, naturally, disagree :) The only use case which is inherently not valid for containers is running a kernel. Practically speaking there are other things which likely will never be possible, but if someone offers a way to do something in containers, "you can't do that in containers" is not an apropos response. "That abstraction is wrong" is certainly valid, as when vpids were originally proposed and rejected, resulting in the development of pid namespaces. "We have to work out (x) first" can be valid (and I can think of examples here), assuming it's not just trying to hide behind a catch-22/chicken-egg problem. Finally, saying "containers are complex and error prone" is conflating several large suites of userspace code and many kernel features which support them. Being more precise would, if the argument is valid, lend it a lot more weight. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/