> Quoting Daniel Hokka Zakrisson (
daniel@hozac.com):
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Please don't. Then we'd need to re-add it in Linux-VServer to support
>> guests where network namespaces aren't used...
>
> So these are networked vservers with a different hostname? Just
> curious, what would be a typical use for these?
