On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:14:41PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andrey Savochkin <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 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.
Good.
I'll focus on my part then.
Andrey
-
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]
