> Quoting Andi Kleen (
andi@firstfloor.org):
>> > I guess that was a development rationale.
>>
>> But what rationale? It just doesn't make much sense to me.
>>
>> > Most of the namespaces are in
>> > use in the container projects like openvz, vserver and probably others
>> > and we needed a way to activate the code.
>>
>> You could just have added it to feature groups over time.
>>
>> >
>> > Not perfect I agree.
>> >
>> > > With your current strategy are you sure that even 64bit will
>> > > be enough in the end? For me it rather looks like you'll
>> > > go through those quickly too as more and more of the kernel
>> > > is namespaced.
>> >
>> > well, we're reaching the end. I hope ! devpts is in progress and
>> > mq is just waiting for a clone flag.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Well for one thing we can take a somewhat different approach to new
> clone flags. I.e. we could extend CLONE_NEWIPC to do mq instead of
> introducing a new clone flag. The name doesn't have 'sysv' in it,
> and globbing all ipc resources together makes some amount of sense.
> Similarly has hpa+eric pointed out earlier, suka could use
> CLONE_NEWDEV for ptys. If we have net, pid, ipc, devices, that's a
> pretty reasonable split imo. Perhaps we tie user to devices and get
> rid of CLONE_NEWUSER which I suspect noone is using atm (since only
> Dave has run into the CONFIG_USER_SCHED problem). Or not. We could
> roll uts into net, and give CLONE_NEWUTS a deprecation period.
