Re: Re: pspace name [message #6183] |
Mon, 11 September 2006 10:37 |
Cedric Le Goater
Messages: 443 Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:52:39PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> I agree we should rename. I had suggested pid_space to "rhyme" wiht
>>> pidmap, but received no ack/nack. I meant to send another mail,
>>> specially after the is_init() collision recently.
>>> |
>>> | 'namespace' should probably be renamed to something like
>>> | 'mnt_namespace' ?
>
>>> While at it, should we change CLONE_NEWNS to CLONE_MNTNS ?
>> We need to retain the NEW in the clone flags. CLONE_NEWMNTNS perhaps.
>> Otherwise with clone at least we get impression of backward semantics.
>
> hmm, got no comment to my suggestion to use VFS instead
> of MNT or mount, was it silently ignored, disliked, or
> just lost?
mount point namespace is probably a bit more 'intuitive' than VFS namespace ?
C.
|
|
|
Re: Re: pspace name [message #6229 is a reply to message #6183] |
Tue, 12 September 2006 10:59 |
Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239 Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:52:39PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I agree we should rename. I had suggested pid_space to "rhyme" wiht
> >>> pidmap, but received no ack/nack. I meant to send another mail,
> >>> specially after the is_init() collision recently.
> >>> |
> >>> | 'namespace' should probably be renamed to something like
> >>> | 'mnt_namespace' ?
> >
> >>> While at it, should we change CLONE_NEWNS to CLONE_MNTNS ?
> >> We need to retain the NEW in the clone flags. CLONE_NEWMNTNS
> >> perhaps. Otherwise with clone at least we get impression of
> >> backward semantics.
> >
> > hmm, got no comment to my suggestion to use VFS instead
> > of MNT or mount, was it silently ignored, disliked, or
> > just lost?
>
> mount point namespace is probably a bit more 'intuitive' than VFS
> namespace ?
hmm, depends for whom, but yes, maybe CLONE_NEWMNTNS is more
understandable than CLONE_NEWVFSNS ... of course, CLONE_NEW_MNT
or CLONE_NEW_VFS would still be better ... anyway not a big deal,
thanks for the feedback
best,
Herbert
> C.
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
|
|
|