[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface

On 9 Jun 2002, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> However, I don't think that's all that important. What I'd rather see is
> making the network devices into namespace nodes. The situation of eth0 and
> friends, from a Unix perspective, is utterly unnatural.

But what would you _do_ with them? What would be the advantage as compared
to the current situation?

Now, to configure a device, you get a fd to the device the same way you
get a fd _anyway_ - with "socket()".

And anybody who says that "socket()" is utterly unnatural to the UNIX way
is quite far out to lunch. It may be unnatural to the Plan-9 way of
"everything is a namespace", but that was never the UNIX way. The UNIX way
is "everything is a file descriptor or a process", but that was never
about namespaces.

Yes, some old-timers could argue that original UNIX didn't have sockets,
and that the BSD interface is ugly and an abomination and that it _should_
have been a namespace thing, but that argument falls flat on its face when
you realize that the "pipe()" system call _was_ in original UNIX, and has
all the same issues.

Don't get hung up about names.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.096 / U:3.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site