Paul Menage writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Li Zefan (l...@cn.fujitsu.com):
>>> Paul Menage wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
>>> >> merge a new feature
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I do think we should lean toward fixing it. After all, it used to work
> OK and now it doesn't.
>
> It is a three-minute matter of patch-wrangling to take the fix out
> again within a more comprehensive 2.6.32 patch series, so that's not an
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:27:20 -0700
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user
> >> namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months
> >
> > incomplete (due to signaling issues wh
Quoting Paul Menage (men...@google.com):
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > 1. the only way it won't outlive the open file is if the
> > task opens the file, hands the open fd over a
> > unix socket, then exits as the last task of i
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> 1. the only way it won't outlive the open file is if the
> task opens the file, hands the open fd over a
> unix socket, then exits as the last task of its
> pidns
Right.
> 2. We d
Quoting Paul Menage (men...@google.com):
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> > + cp = kzalloc(sizeof(*cp), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!cp) {
> > + up_write(&cgrp->pids_mutex);
> > + kfree(pidarray);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>
>> Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user
>> namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months
>
> incomplete (due to signaling issues which have mostly been resolved)
> but stable and usable.
>
> user na
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> The bug was introduced by commit cc31edceee04a7b87f2be48f9489ebb72d264844
> ("cgroups: convert tasks file to use a seq_file with shared pid array").
>
> We cache a pid array for all threads that are opening the same "tasks"
> file, but the pids in t
Quoting Paul Menage (men...@google.com):
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Li Zefan (l...@cn.fujitsu.com):
> >> Paul Menage wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
> >
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Li Zefan (l...@cn.fujitsu.com):
>> Paul Menage wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
>> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into
Quoting Li Zefan (l...@cn.fujitsu.com):
> The bug was introduced by commit cc31edceee04a7b87f2be48f9489ebb72d264844
> ("cgroups: convert tasks file to use a seq_file with shared pid array").
>
> We cache a pid array for all threads that are opening the same "tasks"
> file, but the pids in the arra
Quoting Li Zefan (l...@cn.fujitsu.com):
> Paul Menage wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31?
> >>
> >
> > Does this bug really need to be fixed
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-07-02 10:57:07]:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:36:36 -0700
> Paul Menage wrote:
>
> > Thanks Li - but as I said to Serge in the email when I brought this up
> > originally, I already had a patch in mind for this; I've had an intern
> > (Ben) at Google working on it. His patc
Paul Menage wrote:
> Thanks Li - but as I said to Serge in the email when I brought this up
> originally, I already had a patch in mind for this; I've had an intern
> (Ben) at Google working on it. His patch (pretty much ready, and being
> sent out tomorrow I hope) is pretty similar to yours, but h
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
>> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31?
>>
>
> Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that
> the namespace suppor
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>
> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31?
>
Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that
the namespace support in mainline was robust eno
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:36:36 -0700
Paul Menage wrote:
> Thanks Li - but as I said to Serge in the email when I brought this up
> originally, I already had a patch in mind for this; I've had an intern
> (Ben) at Google working on it. His patch (pretty much ready, and being
> sent out tomorrow I hop
Paul Menage wrote:
> Thanks Li - but as I said to Serge in the email when I brought this up
> originally, I already had a patch in mind for this; I've had an intern
> (Ben) at Google working on it. His patch (pretty much ready, and being
> sent out tomorrow I hope) is pretty similar to yours, but h
Thanks Li - but as I said to Serge in the email when I brought this up
originally, I already had a patch in mind for this; I've had an intern
(Ben) at Google working on it. His patch (pretty much ready, and being
sent out tomorrow I hope) is pretty similar to yours, but his is on
top of another pat
19 matches
Mail list logo
