From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: user namespaces config option Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:44:18 +0200 Message-ID: <46D6F3E2.4000307@fr.ibm.com> References: <46C437C8.9020200@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46C437C8.9020200-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Hi, Cedric, Serge. > > I have noticed, that you have removed config options for > uts and ipc namespaces but kept one for user namespace. > > What's the policy about what namespaces should have config > option? I thought, that the only code that is worth having > under option is clone/destroy one to save .text size for > people who don't need them (embedded). yes .text size is important for the embedded people but performance also. so if perf is not impacted and .text increase is reasonable, it's interesting to remove the config option and clarify the code at the same time. This was the case of uts and ipc ns. user ns is far from complete and should be kept experimental. C.