Re: utsname/hostname

Randy.Dunlap
2006-06-04T23:59:37Z

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:50:11 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

>
> It's time to take a look at the -mm queue for 2.6.18.
>
>
> When replying to this email pleeeeeeze rewrite the Subject: to something
> appropriate so we do not all go mad. Thanks.
>
>
> proc-sysctl-add-_proc_do_string-helper.patch
> namespaces-add-nsproxy.patch
> namespaces-add-nsproxy-dont-include-compileh.patch
> namespaces-incorporate-fs-namespace-into-nsproxy.patch
> namespaces-utsname-introduce-temporary-helpers.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-alpha-fix.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-cleanup.patch
> namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate.patch
> namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate-cifs-update.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces-export.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces-dont-include-compileh.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup-2.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup-2-fix.patch
> namespaces-utsname-remove-system_utsname.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-clone_newuts-flag.patch
> uts-copy-nsproxy-only-when-needed.patch
> # needed if git-klibc isn't there:
> #namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-klibc-bit.patch
> #namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate-klibc-bit.patch
> #namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-klibc-bit-2.patch
>
> utsname virtualisation. This doesn't seem very pointful as a standalone
> thing. That's a general problem with infrastructural work for a very
> large new feature.
>
> So probably I'll continue to babysit these patches, unless someone can
> identify a decent reason why mainline needs this work.

Not a strong argument for mainline, but I have a patch to make
<hostname> larger (up to 255 bytes, per POSIX).
http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/hostname-2617-rc5b.patch

I can either update my hostname patch against mm/utsname.. or not.
But I don't really want to see some/any patch blocked due to a patch
in -mm being borderline "pointful," so how do we deal with this?

> I don't want to carry an ever-growing stream of OS-virtualisation
> groundwork patches for ever and ever so if we're going to do this thing...
> faster, please.

---
~Randy