Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] utsname namespaces: sysctl hack | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:10:01 -0600 |
| |
Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> Hello ! > > Kirill Korotaev wrote: >> Serge, >> >>> Please look closer at the patch. >>> I *am* doing nothing with sysctls. >>> >>> system_utsname no longer exists, and the way to get to that is by using >>> init_uts_ns.name. That's all this does. >> Sorry for being not concrete enough. >> I mean switch () in the code. Until we decided how to virtualize >> sysctls/proc, I believe no dead code/hacks should be commited. IMHO. > > How could we improve that hack ? Removing the modification of the static > table can easily be worked around but getting rid of the switch() statement > is more difficult. Any idea ?
Store offsetof in data. Not that for such a small case it really matters, but it probably improves maintenance by a little bit.
>> FYI, I strongly object against virtualizing sysctls this way as it is >> not flexible and is a real hack from my POV. > > what is the issue with flexibility ?
The only other thing I would like to see is the process argument passed in.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |