On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:15:18 +0100 Christian Brauner wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:23:19PM +0800, menglong8.d...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Menglong Dong <dong.mengl...@zte.com.cn> > > > > For now, sysctl_wmem_default and sysctl_rmem_default are globally > > unified. It's not convenient in some case. For example, when we > > use docker and try to control the default udp socket receive buffer > > for each container. > > > > For that reason, make sysctl_wmem_default and sysctl_rmem_default > > per-namespace. > > > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dong.mengl...@zte.com.cn> > > --- > > Hey Menglong, > > I was about to review the two patches you sent: > > 1. [PATCH net-next] net: core: Namespace-ify sysctl_rmem_max and > sysctl_wmem_max > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210117104743.217194-1-dong.mengl...@zte.com.cn > 2. [PATCH net-next] net: core: Namespace-ify sysctl_wmem_default and > sysctl_rmem_default > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210117102319.193756-1-dong.mengl...@zte.com.cn
And perhaps 0. [PATCH net-next] net: core: init every ctl_table in netns_core_table ? I'm dropping these three from patchwork please follow Christian suggestions on how to repost properly, thanks! > and I had to spend some time figuring out that 2. is dependent on 1. I > first thought I got the base wrong. > > I'd suggest you resend both patches as a part of a single series with a > cover letter mentioning the goal and use-case for these changes and also > pass --base=<base-commit> > when creating the patch series which makes it way easier to figure out > what to apply it to when wanting to review a series in the larger > context of a tree.