<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Michael H. Warfield <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mhw@wittsend.com">mhw@wittsend.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Linus is right. It deserves to be in the kernel. But it's simply not<br>
the only place it should be in. It sets a floor. A minimum value. But<br>
it also sets a paradigm to implement elsewhere as well in addition to...<br>
The bash patch is also a good start... But only a start. Namespaces<br>
and cgroups are a wonderfully rich facility on which to do all sorts of<br>
isolation and virtualization (look at LXC). This whole debate about<br>
this or that is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. DO BOTH!<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote><div><br>Once again MHW takes his wisdom directly from a poster on my wall: Peter's Laws - The creed of the sociopathic obsessive compulsive. <br>#2: When given a choice - take both!<br>
<br>I would love the ability to tie a firefox tab with it's (offensive) javascript thread to a unique cgroup process so _when_ some turd of an effect performs a memwrite to address FFFFFFFFF01 instead of 0000000010 because of a programmers inability to _COUNT_, the entire 40 tabs of research I have open with separate passwords on half of them don't require a new login session.<br>
</div></div>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>I would rather stumble along in freedom than walk effortlessly in chains.<br><br><br>