From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] make cr depend on all namespaces Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:52:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20100315215244.GA5791@hallyn.com> References: <20100315200559.GA25911@us.ibm.com> <4B9EAA5D.1080802@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B9EAA5D.1080802-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@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: Oren Laadan Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org): > > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > This should let us get rid of some ifdefed code and reduce > > chances for bad config combinations. There's really no reason > > to support it. > > I disagree. > > You are right that this will reduce the changes of bad config > combinations. > > However, it will also introduce some restrictions on the kernel > config which are unnecessary. Some people may not want to have > all namespaces configured. Why? The only reason right now to disable namespaces is for kernel size. > Note that the namespaces are independent in the sense that we > don't need to test all combination of all namespaces - instead, > I consider turning on/off one at a time to be safe enough. And do you do that? :) It still gets more complicated bc you have things like sysvipc and posix mq which both can allow ipc_ns. > (FWIW, is it because you only wanted to show a point that you > only remove UTS_NS ifdefs ?) It was just right there in my face... Anyway if you don't take this patch then the UTS_NS code I removed should have 'name' put under ifdef to avoid a build warning. -serge