On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:14:41PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > One possible option to resolve this question is to show 2 relatively > >> > short > >> > patches just introducing namespaces for sockets in 2 ways: with explicit > >> > function parameters and using implicit current context. > >> > Then people can compare them and vote. > >> > Do you think it's worth the effort? > >> > >> Given that we have two strong opinions in different directions I think it > >> is worth the effort to resolve this. > > > > Do you have time to extract necessary parts of your old patch? > > Or you aren't afraid of letting me draft an alternative version of socket > > namespaces basing on your code? :) > > I'm not terribly afraid. I can always say you did it wrong. :)
:) > I don't think I am going to have time today. But since this conversation > is slowing down and we are to getting into the technical details. > I will try and find some time. Good. I'll focus on my part then. Andrey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html