Re: Network namespaces a path to mergable code.

[Andrey Savochkin]

Eric,

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:20:40AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> Thinking about this I am going to suggest a slightly different direction
> for get a patchset we can merge.
> 
> First we concentrate on the fundamentals.
> - How we mark a device as belonging to a specific network namespace.
> - How we mark a socket as belonging to a specific network namespace.

I agree with the direction of your thoughts.
I was trying to do a similar thing, define clear steps in network
namespace merging.

My first patchset covers devices but not sockets.
The only difference from what you're suggesting is ipv4 routing.
For me, it is not less important than devices and sockets.  May be even
more important, since routing exposes design deficiencies less obvious at
socket level.

> 
> As part of the fundamentals we add a patch to the generic socket code
> that by default will disable it for protocol families that do not indicate
> support for handling network namespaces, on a non-default network namespace.

Fine

Can you summarize you objections against my way of handling devices, please?
And what was the typo you referred to in your letter to Kirill Korotaev?

Regards
	Andrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/