On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:28:01AM +0100, clg@fr.ibm.com wrote:
> From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/nsproxy.h |   11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: 2.6.19-rc6-mm2/include/linux/nsproxy.h
> ===================================================================
> --- 2.6.19-rc6-mm2.orig/include/linux/nsproxy.h
> +++ 2.6.19-rc6-mm2/include/linux/nsproxy.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,17 @@ struct net_namespace;
>  struct user_namespace;
>  
>  /*
> + * namespaces flags
> + */
> +#define NS_MNT		0x00000001
> +#define NS_UTS		0x00000002
> +#define NS_IPC		0x00000004
> +#define NS_PID		0x00000008
> +#define NS_NET		0x00000010
> +#define NS_USER		0x00000020
> +#define NS_ALL		(NS_MNT|NS_UTS|NS_IPC|NS_PID|NS_NET|NS_USER)

hmm, why _another_ set of flags to refer to the
namespaces? is the clone()/unshare() set of flags
not sufficient for that? if so, shouldn't we 
switch (or even better change? the unshare() too)
to a new set of syscalls?

note: even if they are just for internal purpose
and will never get exposed to userspace, we should
think twice before we create just another set of
flags, and if we do so, please let us change them
all, including certain clone flags (and add a 
single compatibility wrapper for the 'old' syscalls)

best,
Herbert

> +
> +/*
>   * A structure to contain pointers to all per-process
>   * namespaces - fs (mount), uts, network, sysvipc, etc.
>   *
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers