Andrey Savochkin <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Andrey Savochkin <[email protected]> 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.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
