Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> writes:
>
> Nice work Eric !

Thanks.

> "struct net" is not a very descriptive name imho, why dont stick "ns" or
> "namespace" somewhere ?

My fingers rebelled, and struct net seems to be sufficiently descriptive.
However that is a cosmetic detail and if there is a general consensus
that renaming it to be struct netns or whatever would be a more
readable/maintainable name I can change it.

> Do we really need yet another "struct kmem_cache *net_cachep;" ?
> The object is so small that the standard caches should be OK (kzalloc())

The practical issue at this point in the cycle is visibility.  With a
kmem cache it is easy to spot ref counting leaks or other problems
if they happen.  Without it debugging is much more difficult.  While I
am touched with your faith in my ability to write perfect patches I
think it makes a lot of sense to keep the cache at least until
sometime after the network namespace code is merged and people
generally have confidence in the implementation.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers