On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 04:34:37PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 04:11 PM, jamal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >
> >> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
> >> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1,
jamal writes:
> One thing still confuses me...
> The app control point is in namespace0. I still want to be able to
> "boot" namespaces first and maybe a few seconds later do a socketat()...
> and create devices, tcp sockets etc. I suspect create_ns(namespace-name)
> would involve:
> * open
On 10/03/2010 03:44 PM, jamal wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for clarifying this ..
>
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:13 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify this point. You enter the namespace, create the socket
>> and go back to the initial namespace (or create a new one). Further
>>
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for clarifying this ..
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:13 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Just to clarify this point. You enter the namespace, create the socket
> and go back to the initial namespace (or create a new one). Further
> operations can be made against this fd because it is
On 09/23/2010 01:53 PM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 03:40 PM, jamal wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:33 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This particular usecase is unneeded once you have the "enter" ability.
>>>
>> Is that cheaper from a syscall count/cost?
>
Pavel Emelyanov writes:
> On 09/23/2010 04:11 PM, jamal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
>>> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is
>>> it THAT worse?
>>>
>>
>> Anything
On 09/23/2010 04:11 PM, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
>> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is
>> it THAT worse?
>>
>
> Anything to do with socket IO that requires n
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is
> it THAT worse?
>
Anything to do with socket IO that requires namespace awareness
applies for usage; it could b
On 09/23/2010 03:40 PM, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:33 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
>> This particular usecase is unneeded once you have the "enter" ability.
>
> Is that cheaper from a syscall count/cost?
Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
add routes to c
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:33 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> This particular usecase is unneeded once you have the "enter" ability.
Is that cheaper from a syscall count/cost?
i.e do I have to enter every time i want to write/read this fd?
How does poll/select work in that enter scenario?
cheers,
On 09/23/2010 03:19 PM, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:56 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> On 09/23/2010 12:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Add a system call for creating sockets in a specified network namespace.
>>
>> What for?
>
> I can see many uses if my understanding is corre
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:56 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 12:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Add a system call for creating sockets in a specified network namespace.
>
> What for?
I can see many uses if my understanding is correct..
ex, from mother namespace:
fdx = open s
On 09/23/2010 12:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Add a system call for creating sockets in a specified network namespace.
What for?
___
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo
13 matches
Mail list logo
