From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965114AbWD0MeJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:34:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965115AbWD0MeI (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:34:08 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:18057 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965114AbWD0MeH (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:34:07 -0400 To: Sam Vilain Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] utsname namespaces: sysctl hack References: <20060407095132.455784000@sergelap> <20060407183600.E40C119B902@sergelap.hallyn.com> <4446547B.4080206@sw.ru> <20060419175123.GD1238@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <4446AF56.9060706@vilain.net> <20060425220022.GD7228@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <444EF25D.9070702@vilain.net> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:32:23 -0600 In-Reply-To: <444EF25D.9070702@vilain.net> (Sam Vilain's message of "Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:09:01 +1200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sam Vilain writes: > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >>>>Can we please suggest a syscall interface? >>>> >>>> >> >>Eric, >> >>Did you have any ideas for how you'd want to interface to look? Are >>you fine with the vserver approach? My preference is for a clone/unshare flag. My second preference would be a new syscall that simply creates the interface. The important point is that we have something that works and solves the subset of the problem we are working on. > Eric has said that his understanding was that syscall switches (ie, > syscalls with subcommands) were bad form. > > I understand the concern, but I think while it's still in prototype > stages, that it's a sensible and pragmatic approach. Once individual > subcommands are "finalised" then they can be split out into a seperate > syscall, and any level of backwards compatibility can be maintained by > whoever needs it. This is a key point. We are not in prototype stage. Linux-Vserver, OpenVZ and other less polished implementations work have already provided that. Where we are now is implementing well understood subsets of the problem in a way that everyone can use. So all that really matters is an interface that is good enough for the current subset. Since each subset of the problem can stand on it's own we can give it a very thorough technical review. Eric