From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add network namespace clone & unshare support. Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:12:13 +0200 Message-ID: <46FCC56D.9050600@fr.ibm.com> References: <46FB6F1E.8070105@fr.ibm.com> <20070927.124552.69400277.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: David Miller , containers@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > David Miller writes: > >> Eric, pick an appropriate new non-conflicting number NOW. > > Done. My apologies for the confusion. I thought the > way Cedric and the IBM guys were testing someone would have > shouted at me long before now. > >> This adds unnecessary extra work for Andrew Morton, which he has >> enough of already. > > Cedric made a good point that we will have conflicts of code > being added to the same place in nsproxy.c and the like. So > I copied Andrew to give him a heads up. here's a suggestion, we could keep the net namespace unshare patch out of david's tree, let andrew merge and release a new -mm and, then, send the net namespace unshare patch to andrew. that should keep nsproxy out of the andrew's merge challenge. But david's tree will miss the unshare part for a while. As for the clone flags, the values *must not* conflict but the patches probably will. C. > I will gladly do what I can, to help. Working against 3 trees > development at the moment is a bit of a development challenge. > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers >