Re: namespace acceptance process. bad news

["Denis V. Lunev" <den-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org>]

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>> Hello, All!
>>
>> We are completely bite to ground with the current Eric's patchset today
>> by Dave Miller. flowi tagging considered wrong. The same opinion has
>> been received from Alexey Kuznetsov :(
>>
>> So, it seems that we can't push this approach.
> 
> Argh !
> 
>>
>> Daniel, Benjamin, should I merge your code to our git after this news or
>> we should stop a bit and think? We have talked on OLS that if Dave stop
>> us with current approach we could try global context as in OpenVz.
> 
> IMHO, doing netns switching has no sense now we are so far in the netns
> implementation.
> 
>> I think I'll code this a bit and see a reaction, but we need to have
>> some agreement here :)
> 
> I am more inclined to think about how to handle this problem before
> doing anything.
> 
> Let's try to understand why flowi tagging is considered wrong first.
> 
> Alexey seems to disagree with this approach, is it possible to elaborate
> a little bit ?
> 
>
Here is a quote from Miller:

| I'm not applying this, it's going to have a negative impact on routing
| performance.
|
| It also changes the semantics of the flowi object in a way I very
| much dislike, in that there is now non-clobberable state in there.
|
| Previously only addressing identifying objects were present in the
| flow, you could use it any context, and there were no pointer
| dereferencing or object references from this thing.  It was very
| simple.
|
| That is no longer the case after your patch and I don't want us
| to go down this path.
|
| Please find another way to implement this.

flowi marking is a way to deliver the namespace into the routing code,
as far as I can understand the implementation.

Regards,
	Den