Quoting Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > I guess that was a development rationale. > > But what rationale? It just doesn't make much sense to me. > > > Most of the namespaces are in > > use in the container projects like openvz, vserver and probably others > > and we needed a way to activate the code. > > You could just have added it to feature groups over time. > > > > > Not perfect I agree. > > > > > With your current strategy are you sure that even 64bit will > > > be enough in the end? For me it rather looks like you'll > > > go through those quickly too as more and more of the kernel > > > is namespaced. > > > > well, we're reaching the end. I hope ! devpts is in progress and > > mq is just waiting for a clone flag. > > Are you sure?
Well for one thing we can take a somewhat different approach to new clone flags. I.e. we could extend CLONE_NEWIPC to do mq instead of introducing a new clone flag. The name doesn't have 'sysv' in it, and globbing all ipc resources together makes some amount of sense. Similarly has hpa+eric pointed out earlier, suka could use CLONE_NEWDEV for ptys. If we have net, pid, ipc, devices, that's a pretty reasonable split imo. Perhaps we tie user to devices and get rid of CLONE_NEWUSER which I suspect noone is using atm (since only Dave has run into the CONFIG_USER_SCHED problem). Or not. We could roll uts into net, and give CLONE_NEWUTS a deprecation period. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel