On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho > >> and waste our time instead of doing things.
> > well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement > > something ... not the other way round, and then start > > fixing up the mess ... > > Well we need a bit of both. hmm, are 'we' in a hurry here? until recently, 'Linux' (mainline) didn't even want to hear about OS Level virtualization, now there is a rush to quickly get 'something' in, not knowing or caring if it is usable at all? I think there are a lot of 'potential users' for this kind of virtualization, and so 'we' can test almost all aspects outside of mainline, and once we know the stuff works as expected, then we can integrate it ... the UTS namespace was something 'we all' had already implemented in this (or a very similar) way, and in one or two interations, it should actually work as expected. nevertheless, it was one of the simplest spaces ... we do not yet know the details for the IPC namespace, as IPC is not that easy to check as UTS, and 'we' haven't gotten real world feedback on that yet ... so personally I think we should start some serious testing on the upcoming namespaces, and we should continue discussing the various approaches, until 'we' can agree on the (almost) 'perfect' solution > This is thankfully not exported to user space, so as long > as our implementation is correct it doesn't much matter. that's something I do not really agree with, stuff integrated into the kernel should be well designed and it should be tested ... best, Herbert > I do agree with the point that context may make sense. > I have yet to be convinced though. > > Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
