Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:20:45 -0600 From: James Gritton <jamie@gritton.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kinda headsup.. Message-ID: <484DACBD.50109@gritton.org> In-Reply-To: <484DAB87.6040706@elischer.org> References: <484CC690.9020303@elischer.org> <20080609174826.Q83875@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <484D8EDD.3040103@elischer.org> <484DA546.9060005@gritton.org> <484DAB87.6040706@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > James Gritton wrote: >> Could we have a list of what isn't expected to actually commit? So >> the scheduler stuff is out. Is that all of the struct vcpu? Parts >> of struct vprocg? I see some scheduling bits in both. >> >> Aside from vnet/vinet and the doomed scheduling bits, I see not much >> besides the hostname, domain name, and morphing symlinks. Are these >> staying? The hostname is already in jails ,and the domainname makes >> sense in my new jail framework - the morphing symlinks might be >> something best left for later. > > domain name and hostname both stay.. > Hostname is tricky because both jail and vimage expect to change it.. > though jail only really expects it to be virtualised to the user > rather than REALLY VIRTUALISED. I notice there are some differences between the two approaches, and plan to keep the hostname as virtualized as possible. But really, the differences are few and easily merged. > The morphing symlinks are an experimental feature. > The verio guys have some work in that direction too that they want to > work on.... hmmm that's not you is it? Yeah, could be. So while it's a feature I understand and like, I still prefer it remain for later. > Loadavg etc. is not "out for ever" just "not in the first commit set." > as they have not been extensively tested, and probably need more work. > > >> >> Ideally, for integration purposes, the vnet/vinet would hang off >> jails that have pretty much the same capability as the vimage >> structure, and then other bits could be added later. I don't want to >> worry about trying to integrate features that aren't in the final cut >> anyway. > > the aim is that vimage and jail structures would merge. > > as the for "final cut", the schedule only covers initial commits of > the vnet code, but once the framework is in place more functionality > would be added. "Final cut" was a poor choice of words - I too am talking about the first commit that covers the vnet code. - Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?484DACBD.50109>