Re: [patch 0/1] [RFC][net namespace] veth ioctl management
Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru> writes: > Eric, > >> Mostly it is six of one half a dozen of the other as far as the actual > implementation >> is concerned. The practical difference is etun is not tied in any way shape > or >> form to namespaces, whereas veth appears to be. > veth is not tied to namespaces as well. > it is possible to create a pair of veth devices in host system for example. But the code is because it has that push/pop thing in it. At least it did last time I looked. Daniels changes sound like there where making namespace assumptions in the veth configuration code, but I could be wrong there. I do agree that there is no fundamental reason why namespace assumptions should be made it just that they were :( >> Currently the L2 stuff derived from OpenVZ appears to be completely >> unmergable because of how the patchset is constructed. > you didn't say it before... :) > can you point to *exact* issues we can fix? > I really think that commenting each other approaches > and fixing this we can go quicker. Agreed. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers