Dmitry Mishin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sunday 10 September 2006 06:47, Herbert Poetzl wrote: >> well, I think it would be best to have both, as >> they are complementary to some degree, and IMHO >> both, the full virtualization _and_ the isolation >> will require a separate namespace to work, > [snip] >> I do not think that folks would want to recompile >> their kernel just to get a light-weight guest or >> a fully virtualized one > In this case light-weight guest will have unnecessary overhead. > For example, instead of using static pointer, we have to find the required > common namespace before. And there will be no advantages for such guest over > full-featured.
Dmitry that just isn't true if implemented properly. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
