Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 07:17:55 -0600 From: Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: virtualization@FreeBSD.org, jail@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New jail framework - the userland side Message-ID: <49FEEB03.7060908@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4424.1241418320@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <4424.1241418320@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <49FE5387.3020503@FreeBSD.org>, Jamie Gritton writes: > >> Hi all. I recently added some new jail-related system calls to extend >> the current jail system with an nmount-inspired name=value interface. > > I think this is a great move in the right direction, my only concern is > that we should try to share as much of the string-munging code between > the nmount and jail implementations as possible. Most if it is shared - jail actually calls vfs_getopt and related calls from the family. I might want to spin those functions off into their own subsystem at some point, now that they're officially used outside of VFS. I did have to extend things somewhat for jail_get, as nmount is write- only and only had to deal with one module at a time (the filesystem type). Those extensions are available for use elsewhere, as I suspect filesystems and jails aren't the only place where we could use name- based extensibility. - Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49FEEB03.7060908>