Re: [patch -mm] net namespace: empty framework

[Daniel Lezcano]

Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> On Thursday 23 November 2006 05:39, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Dmitry Mishin (dim@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > > On Wednesday 22 November 2006 19:41, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > > > > 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.

Do you mind if we port your patchset on top of this patch ? If you have 
no time for that I can do it.

 -- Daniel
-
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/