From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] C/R: inet4 and inet6 unicast routes (v2) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:25:56 -0700 Message-ID: <87mxwkztjf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1272646855-17327-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20100430181946.GA26761@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, Vlad Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Return-path: Received: from gw0.danplanet.com ([71.245.107.82]:33021 "EHLO mail.danplanet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758607Ab0D3S0M (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:26:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100430181946.GA26761@us.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Fri\, 30 Apr 2010 13\:19\:46 -0500") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: SH> So I'm afraid you're going to have to do a slightly uglier thing SH> where you unshare_nsproxy_namespaces() and then SH> switch_task_namespaces() to the new nsproxy. Well, I think that would be hidden in the nicer helper function I think I'll need, which I eluded to in the patch header. This is just an RFC proof that it can be done in this manner, but I think a separate helper in nsproxy.c is in order to make it nice (and avoid the extra alloc/free of the netns that copy_namespaces() will create). Agreed? Thanks! -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@us.ibm.com