> Only the cpuset_post_clone() is currently implemented. If any
> sibling containers have exclusive cpus or mems, then the cpus
> and mems are not filled in for the new container, meaning that
> unshare/clone(CLONE_NEWNS) will be denied. However so long as
> no siblings have exclusive cpus or mem
>From 3efbf21565c69fe4dd76b9fcf073f6f9954aa1fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:25:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] containers: implement namespace tracking subsystem (v3)
When a task enters a new namespace via a clone() or unshare(), a
new c
>From aed04d506feac3a71896713a5d5aeded839fdd9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:06:38 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] containers: implement subsys->post_clone()
container_clone() in one step creates a new container and moves
the current task i
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>I'm going to push my latest patches to Dave today, the easiest way is
>>probably is you just add whatever you need to the API afterwards.
>>
>
>
> OK. Dave didn't object against the driver. Hope he will accept it as well.
>
> I have also found
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>>> The question is how to proceed. I haven't read all mails yet, but it
>>> seems there is some disagreement about whether to create all devices
>>> in the same namespace and move them later or create them directly in
>>
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 06:01:05AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +1.5 How do I use containers ?
> +--
> +
> +To start a new job that is to be contained within a container, using
> +the "cpuset" container subsystem, the steps are something like:
> +
> + 1) mkdir /dev
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>The question is how to proceed. I haven't read all mails yet, but it
>>seems there is some disagreement about whether to create all devices
>>in the same namespace and move them later or create them directly in
>
>
> The agreement was that we c
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> Cedric Le Goater wrote:
Pavel and all,
>>> [snip]
>>>
findings are :
* definitely better results for suka's patchset. suka's patchset is
also getting better results with unixbench on a 2.6.2
Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>> Pavel and all,
>> [snip]
>>
>>> findings are :
>>>
>>> * definitely better results for suka's patchset. suka's patchset is
>>> also getting better results with unixbench on a 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 but
>>> the values ar
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>
+ skb->pkt_type = PACKET_HOST;
+ skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(skb, rcv);
+ if (dev->features & NETIF_F_NO_CSUM)
+ skb->ip_summed = rcv_priv->ip_summed;
+
+ dst_release(skb->d
10 matches
Mail list logo
