On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Janne Karhunen <janne.karhu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> That being said, is there a valid reason why binder is part of device
>> namespace here instead of IPC?
>
> I think the practical issue with binder was simply that binder only
> allows for a single instance and thus is does not play nicely with
> containers.
It's true that there was a singleton paradigm in binder that had to be
overcome, but I agree with Janne. It really belongs in the IPC namespace,
and I don't see any technical reason not to move it there.
-Jeremy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lxc-devel mailing list
Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
