Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezc...@free.fr): > ch...@versecorp.net wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > >> Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> > >>> As far as I recall, if you have sysfs active and use the sysfs patch to > >>> let you configure both sysfs and network namespaces, you can only move > >>> virtual interfaces into a network namespace. > >>> > >>> Guenter > >>> > >>> > >> Ah ! yes, you are right :) > >> > >> The current upstream implementation allowing sysfs and netns to coexist > >> together has one restriction, the physical network devices can not be > >> moved if sysfs is enabled in the kernel. This is why Chris can not move > >> the physical network device with this version of the kernel. > >> This restriction will be set until the sysfs per namespace is fully > >> supported. > >> > >> This restriction does not exist with with the previous kernel version > >> with the sysfs per namespace patchset. > >> > >> -- Daniel > >> > >> > > > > Ah, great, thanks to all for your help on this. > > Do you have any rough estimate when the support for sysfs per namespace will > > > The sysfs per namespace has been rejected because of some design > problems related with the sysfs itself. > Perhaps Eric can tell more about that...
Chris, in the meantime, is using the physical device an absolute necessity, or could you work around it for now using a veth tunnel? Even if Eric has been working on the sysfs locking rework quietly the last few months, i'd expect several months of back-and-forth trying to prove that the rework is correct... -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel