Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Mishin <> | Subject | Re: [patch -mm] net namespace: empty framework | Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:07:40 +0300 |
| |
On Thursday 23 November 2006 05:39, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dmitry Mishin (dim@openvz.org): > > On Wednesday 22 November 2006 19:41, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@fr.ibm.com): > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Dmitry Mishin wrote: > > > > > This patch looks acceptable for us. > > > > > > > > good. shall we merge it then ? see comment below. > > > > > > > > > BTW, Daniel, we agreed to be based on the Andrey's patchset. I do > > > > > not see a reason, why Cedric force us to make some unnecessary work > > > > > and move existent patchset over his interface. > > > > > > > > yeah it's a bit different from andrey's but not that much and it's > > > > more in > > > > > > Where is Andrey's patch? > > > > This thread - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/42666 > > Thanks, Dmitry. Now I do recall seeing that before. > > That patchset appears to go part, but not all the way to fitting in with > the existing namespaces. For instance, you use exit_task_namespaces() for > refcounting, but don't put the net_namespace in the nsproxy and use your > own mechanism for unsharing. > > It really seems useful to have all the namespaces be consistent whenever > practical, and I don't think your patchset would need much tweaking to > fit onto Cedric's patch. Am I missing a complicating factor? No. I've already said, Cedric's patch is acceptable for us.
-- Thanks, Dmitry. - 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/
| |