Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:12:34AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Roughly that sounds like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to me.  But I would
>>>> be happy to hear if someone has a better idea.
>>> Rather than overload an existing config option, why not add one with the
>>> specific semantics you want: CONFIG_UNSTABLE_UABI.  The problem seems
>>> like one which which may occur again, though one hopes not too often.  I
>>> guess the risk is that people will leave their subsystems depending on
>>> it permanently (sysfs?), so it ends up being set all the time and
>>> becomes as useless as EXPERIMENTAL...
>> Then let SYSFS depend on UNSTABLE_UABI for the next 10 years and we have 
>> an excuse for breaking the ABI with each new kernel...
>>
>> Either the ABI is stable or it should not be exposed to users at all.
> 
> If we need a new config for it.  CONFIG_IMMATURE is the closest I
> can think of.

Pavel also has a CONFIG_NAMESPACES patch that he should be resending to 
andrew when 2.6.24-rc1-mm1 is released. pidns will go under this option, 
like all the other namespaces, and should protect the distros from shipping 
any immature namespace.


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