On Saturday 09 December 2006 09:35, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100 > > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho > > > > >> and waste our time instead of doing things. > > > > > > > > well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement > > > > > something ... not the other way round, and then start > > > > > fixing up the mess ... > > > > > > > > Well we need a bit of both. > > > > > > hmm, are 'we' in a hurry here? > > > > > > until recently, 'Linux' (mainline) didn't even want > > > to hear about OS Level virtualization, now there > > > is a rush to quickly get 'something' in, not knowing > > > or caring if it is usable at all? > > > > It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully. > > hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the > IPC namespace then, not that I think it is broken > (well, maybe it is, we do not know yet) Herbert,
you know that this code is used in our product. And in its turn, our product is tested internally and by a community. We have no reports about bugs in this code. If you have to say more than just "something to say", please, say it. > > > > I think there are a lot of 'potential users' for > > > this kind of virtualization, and so 'we' can test > > > almost all aspects outside of mainline, and once > > > we know the stuff works as expected, then we can > > > integrate it ... > > > > > > the UTS namespace was something 'we all' had already > > > implemented in this (or a very similar) way, and in > > > one or two interations, it should actually work as > > > expected. nevertheless, it was one of the simplest > > > spaces ... > > > > > > we do not yet know the details for the IPC namespace, > > > as IPC is not that easy to check as UTS, and 'we' > > > haven't gotten real world feedback on that yet ... > > > > We are very dependent upon all stakeholders including yourself > > to review, test and comment upon this infrastructure as it is > > proposed and merged. If something is proposed which will not > > suit your requirements then it is important that we hear about > > it, in detail, at the earliest possible time. > > okay, good to hear that I'm still considered a stakeholder > > will try to focus the feedback and cc as many folks > as possible, as it seems that some feedback is lost > on the way upstream ... > > best, > Herbert > > > Thanks. > -- Thanks, Dmitry. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
