[PATCH 1/1] Revert "[PATCH] identifier to nsproxy"
Cedric Le Goater
clg at fr.ibm.com
Mon Dec 11 13:47:26 PST 2006
> Even if the id is a sane idea nsproxy is very much the wrong place to
> put it. nsproxy is an optimization so we don't bloat task struct with
> several additional pointers, and it keeps fork times under control because
> in the normal case we only have a single increment instead of several.
yes and so ?
> I'm not fully convinced it isn't a pessimization because it adds an
> extra indirection. It is fully inappropriate to export that to user
this is not exported to user space yet.
> Now I don't mind a little experimentation but not in the stable kernel
> when several people disagree.
yeah, i'm not sure how to understand that "several".
> To a very large degree adding an id to struct nsproxy violates the compromise
> we came to when we agreed to add nsproxy.
compromise ... you should say eric's capitulation ;)
> I am willing to discuss this but not while it is silently being added
you're in cc:
> to the user interface and being exported to userspace in a way we have
> to support for the forseeable future. To that I strongly object.
again : this is not exported to user space yet.
> The fact that it is simply dead code for 2.6.20 is probably sufficient
> justification to revert it until we can agree.
ok. i'll keep adding it to the patchset.
thanks for your positive contribution,
C, lightly upset but will not surrender.
More information about the Containers