Jan Engelhardt <jeng...@medozas.de> writes: > On Tuesday 2010-03-02 16:03, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>> I agree with all the points you and Pavel you talked about but I don't >>> feel comfortable to have the current process to switch the pid namespace >>> because of the process tree hierarchy (what will be the parent of the >>> process when you enter the pid namespace for example). >> >>The answer is - the one, that used to be. I see no problems with it. >>Do you? > > But perhaps it could be named "namespacefd" instead of nsfd, to reduce > potential clashes (because glibc will usually just use the same name > when making the syscall available as a C function).
Maybe. namespacefd seems like a real mouthful. I agree nsfd might be a bit non-obvious for a rarish syscall. Eric _______________________________________________ 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
