On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:20:42PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: > >>> What steps are required for it to be included? > >> political hick-hack and a lot of convincing/knowing > >> the core kernel developers ... > > > > it might be worth the effort, though. OOT development is the main > > obstacle for vserver acceptance here (compared to OpenVZ). OpenVZ is not OOT? > > It would be a pity if vserver did go the reiserfs way. > I think the correct way to proceed would be to isolate small changes > that could be added to the kernel that would not be seen as too > intrusive and definitely not in one go. The process could take months > and months, but eventually the vserver patch would be reduced to, > hopefully, zero. > > My understanding is the changes vserver introduces are, > > * process isolation > + process space > + memory > * file system isolation > * privilege reduction in guest > * network isolation > > I would propose that we try getting each one of these, in turn, > into the kernel. > The first would have to be the process space isolation. mainline goes for the heavier process virtualization instead of isolation ... > But before even doing that, we need something better than one giant > patch. http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental/split-2.6.22.10-vs2.2.0.5.tar.bz2 > Is there a vserver repository where people can work and commit > stuff? For example, arch/git/svn/hg/whatever ? git is distributed and simple, create your own repository and start working on it ... best, Herbert > - Adam > > BTW: I'm not a vserver developer or even a kernel developer, but I'll > learn something in my hacking :)