On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:14:41PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrey Savochkin <saw@swsoft.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Andrey Savochkin <saw@swsoft.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > One possible option to resolve this question is to show 2 relatively short
> >> > patches just introducing namespaces for sockets in 2 ways: with explicit
> >> > function parameters and using implicit current context.
> >> > Then people can compare them and vote.
> >> > Do you think it's worth the effort?
> >>
> >> Given that we have two strong opinions in different directions I think it
> >> is worth the effort to resolve this.
> >
> > Do you have time to extract necessary parts of your old patch?
> > Or you aren't afraid of letting me draft an alternative version of socket
> > namespaces basing on your code? :)
>
> I'm not terribly afraid. I can always say you did it wrong. :)
:)
> I don't think I am going to have time today. But since this conversation
> is slowing down and we are to getting into the technical details.
> I will try and find some time.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
