> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> >>>Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing
> >>>entries.
> >>>Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
> >>>and be vi
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 12:22 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway Jamal can you see the problem the aliases present to the
> implementation?
>>
>
> I think more than anything i may have a different view of things and no
> code ;-> And you are trying t
On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 12:22 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Anyway Jamal can you see the problem the aliases present to the
> implementation?
>
I think more than anything i may have a different view of things and no
code ;-> And you are trying to restore order in the discussion - so my
wil
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > Then the pragmatic question becomes how to correlate what you see from
>> > > `ip addr list' to guests.
>> >
>> > on the host ip addr and the one seen on the guest side are the same.
>> > Except one is seen (on the host) on guest0-eth0 and another is seen
Jamal,
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:50:52AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> BTW - I was just looking at openvz, very impressive. To the other folks,
Thanks!
> I am not putting down any of your approaches - just havent
> had time to study them. Andrey, this is the same thing you guys have
> been working o
Hi Andrey,
BTW - I was just looking at openvz, very impressive. To the other folks,
I am not putting down any of your approaches - just havent
had time to study them. Andrey, this is the same thing you guys have
been working on for a few years now, you just changed the name, correct?
Ok, since yo
Hi Jamal,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:15:52PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 09:07 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
[snip]
> > We plan to have them separate - so for
> > that to work, each network namespace could have an arbitrary "prefix"
> > that determines what the interface name will look
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:15:52PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 09:07 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > jamal wrote:
>
> > > Makes sense for the host side to have naming convention tied
> > > to the guest. Example as a prefix: guest0-eth0. Would it not
> > > be interesting to have the ho
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Makes sense for the host side to have naming convention tied
>> to the guest. Example as a prefix: guest0-eth0. Would it not
>> be interesting to have the host also manage these interfaces
>> via standard tools like ip or ifconfig etc? i.e if i admin up
>> guest0-eth0, t
On Fri, 2006-30-06 at 09:07 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > Makes sense for the host side to have naming convention tied
> > to the guest. Example as a prefix: guest0-eth0. Would it not
> > be interesting to have the host also manage these interfaces
> > via standard tools like ip or i
jamal wrote:
>> note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
>> the device names so that each guest can have a separate
>> name space for devices, but there should be a way to
>> 'see' _and_ 'identify' the interfaces from outside
>> (i.e. host or spectator context)
>>
>>
>
> Makes
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:19:00PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Jamal,
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:23AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 15:36 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > > note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
> > > the device names so t
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:36:40AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:31:05PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> >> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> > Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution
> >> > is fundamental. B
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrey,
>
> On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 18:19 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>> Hi Jamal,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:23AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>> >
>
>>
>> Seeing guestXX-eth0 interfaces by standard tools has certain attractive
>> sides. But it creates a l
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:17:35PM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 18:19 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > Seeing guestXX-eth0 interfaces by standard tools has certain attractive
> > sides. But it creates a lot of undesired side effects.
> >
>
> I apologize because i butted
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution
>> is fundamental. Believing without proof and after arguments
>> to the contrary that you have not contradicted that a layer 2
>> solution is inherently slower is non-productive.
>
> assumin
Andrey,
On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 18:19 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Jamal,
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:23AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> >
>
> Seeing guestXX-eth0 interfaces by standard tools has certain attractive
> sides. But it creates a lot of undesired side effects.
>
I apologize be
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:31:05PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution
>> > is fundamental. Believing without proof and after arguments
>> > to the contrary that you have n
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:52 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> seriously, what I think Eric meant was that it
>> might be nice (especially for migration purposes)
>> to keep the device namespace completely virtualized
>> and not just isolated ...
>
> It might
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 15:36 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
>> note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
>> the device names so that each guest can have a separate
>> name space for devices, but there should be a way to
>> 'see' _and_ 'identify' th
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:31:05PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution
> > is fundamental. Believing without proof and after arguments
> > to the contrary that you have not contradicted that a layer 2
> > solution is inh
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> last time I pointed to such 'misguided' apps which
> made assumptions that are not necessarily true
> inside a virtual environment (e.g. pstree, initpid)
> the general? position was that those apps should
> be fixed instead adding a 'workaround'
I agr
Hi Jamal,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 09:53:23AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 15:36 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> > note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
> > the device names so that each guest can have a separate
> > name space for devices, but there should be
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:07:29PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:29:39AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I watched the linux-vserver irc channel for a while and
On Wed, 2006-28-06 at 15:36 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> note: personally I'm absolutely not against virtualizing
> the device names so that each guest can have a separate
> name space for devices, but there should be a way to
> 'see' _and_ 'identify' the interfaces from outside
> (i.e. host or
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:38:14PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> >> It may look weird, but do application really *need* to see eth0 rather
> >> than eth858354?
> >
> > Applications do not care, humans do. :-)
> >
> > What's about
Hi !
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
[ ... ]
> So just to sink one additional nail in the coffin of the silly
> guest to guest communication issue. For any two guests where
> fast communication between them is really important I can run
> an additional interface pair that requires no routing or bridgi
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Have a few more network interfaces for a layer 2 solution
> is fundamental. Believing without proof and after arguments
> to the contrary that you have not contradicted that a layer 2
> solution is inherently slower is non-productive. Arguing
> that a layer 2 only solut
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:29:39AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I watched the linux-vserver irc channel for a while and almost
>> every network problem was caused by the change in semantics
>> vserv
Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello!
>
>> It may look weird, but do application really *need* to see eth0 rather
>> than eth858354?
>
> Applications do not care, humans do. :-)
>
> What's about applications they just need to see exactly the same device
> after migration. Not only
Hello!
> It may look weird, but do application really *need* to see eth0 rather
> than eth858354?
Applications do not care, humans do. :-)
What's about applications they just need to see exactly the same device
after migration. Not only name, but f.e. also its ifindex. If you do not
create a sep
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 00:52 +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> seriously, what I think Eric meant was that it
> might be nice (especially for migration purposes)
> to keep the device namespace completely virtualized
> and not just isolated ...
It might be nice, but it is probably unneeded for an initi
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:29:39AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:54:51PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >> >>My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
> >> >>your packets are being routed onl
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:07:38AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
> >Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> >>yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that
> >>affects networking in general (performance wise and
> >>memory w
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Inside the containers I want all network devices named eth0!
> >>
> >>huh? ev
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Inside the containers I want all network devices named eth0!
huh? even if there are two of them? also tun?
I think you meant, you want to be able to have
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 06:02:42PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> - loopback traffic inside a guest is insignificantly
>slower than on a normal system
>
> - loopback traffic on the host is insignificantly
>slower than on a normal system
>
> - inter guest traffic is faster than on-wire
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Inside the containers I want all network devices named eth0!
>
> huh? even if there are two of them? also tun?
>
> I think you meant, you want to be able to have eth0 in
> _more_
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:09:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to caution about over-optimizing communications between
>> different network namespaces. Many optimizations of local traffic
>> (such as high MTU) don't look so appealing
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:54:51PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> >>My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
>> >>your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
>> >>to have separate routing tables in each nam
Herbert,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:48:19PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:09:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:25PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > >
> > > - traffic between guests
> > >can be as high (or even higher) than
Ben Greear wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that
affects networking in general (performance wise and
memory wise, i.e. caches and hashes) ...
I'll run some tests later today. Based on my
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:54:51PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
> >>your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
> >>to have separate routing tables in each namespace.
> >
> >
> >Right. What is the advantage o
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 05:52:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time,
> and your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
> to have separate routing tables in e
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:09:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:25PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > keep in mind that you actually have three kinds
> > of network traffic on a typical host/guest system:
> >
> > - traffic between unit and outs
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
to have separate routing tables in each namespace.
>>>
>>>Right. What is the advantage of having separate the rou
Daniel,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:21:02PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
> >>>your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
> >>>to have separate routing tables in each namespace.
> >>
> >>Right. What is the ad
My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
to have separate routing tables in each namespace.
Right. What is the advantage of having separate the routing tables ?
Routing is everything.
For example, I want
My point is that if you make namespace tagging at routing time, and
your packets are being routed only once, you lose the ability
to have separate routing tables in each namespace.
Right. What is the advantage of having separate the routing tables ?
it is impossible to have bridged networking,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> >>>Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing
> >>>entries.
> >>>Which implies that you'll
Andrey Savochkin wrote:
Daniel,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries.
Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
and be visible in one namespace only (like tu
Herbert,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:25PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> keep in mind that you actually have three kinds
> of network traffic on a typical host/guest system:
>
> - traffic between unit and outside
>- host traffic should be quite minimal
>- guest traffic will be quite
Daniel,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 05:49:41PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing
> > entries.
> > Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
> > and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels),
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
yes, that sounds good to me, any numbers how that
affects networking in general (performance wise and
memory wise, i.e. caches and hashes) ...
I'll run some tests later today. Based on my previous tests,
I don
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:13:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> >Basically it is just a matter of:
> >if (dest_mac == my_mac1) it is for device 1.
> >If (dest_mac == my_mac2) it is for device 2.
> >etc.
> >
> >At a small count of macs it is trivial to understand it will
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Basically it is just a matter of:
if (dest_mac == my_mac1) it is for device 1.
If (dest_mac == my_mac2) it is for device 2.
etc.
At a small count of macs it is trivial to understand it will go
fast for a larger count of macs it only works with a good data
structure. We
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:37:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > yes,
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:37:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
yes, but you will not be able to apply policy
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 02:37:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > yes, but you will not be able to apply policy on
> > the
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
> yes, but you will not be able to apply policy on
> the parent, restricting the child networking in a
> proper way without jumping th
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:35:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:40:59AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to hav
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:40:59AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own
>> >> routing entries. Which implies that you'll have difficulties wi
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:08:03PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> not at all, maybe you should take a closer look at the
> current Linux-VServer implementation, which is quite
> simple and _does_ allow guests to bind to IP_ANY quite
> fine, only the
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:40:59AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own
> >> routing entries. Which implies that you'll have difficulties with
> >> devices that should exist and be visible i
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 06:08:03PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > > I see a fundamental problem with this approach. When a device
> > > p
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries.
>> Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
>> and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP
>> addresses and rout
Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries.
Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP
addresses and route.
I mean instead of having the route tables privat
Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>
> Hi Andrey,
>
>> It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion.
>> Although I wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier
>> :).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
>
>> When a device presen
Daniel,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 04:56:32PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >
> > It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion.
> > Although I wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier
> > :).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrey Savochkin wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Andrey,
It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion.
Although I wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
When a device presents an skb to the protocol layer, it needs to know to which
name
Hi Herbert,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>
> > I see a fundamental problem with this approach. When a device presents
> > an skb to the protocol layer, it needs to know to which namespace this
>
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion Although I.
>> wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :) .
>
>> Indeed, the firs
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion Although I.
> wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :) .
> Indeed, the first point to agree in this discussion is device list.
Hi Daniel,
It's good that you kicked off network namespace discussion.
Although I wish you'd Cc'ed someone at OpenVZ so I could notice it earlier :).
Indeed, the first point to agree in this discussion is device list.
In your patch, you essentially introduce a data structure parallel
to the main
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:02:04PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> + read_lock(&dev_base_lock);
> +
> + for (dev = dev_base; dev; dev = dev->next)
> + if (!strncmp(dev->name, devname, IFNAMSIZ))
> + break;
> +
> + if (!dev) {
> + ret = -ENO
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:02:04 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +int net_ns_dev_add(const char *devname,
> +struct net_ns_dev_list *devlist)
> +{
> + struct net_ns_dev *db;
> + struct net_device *dev;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + read_lock(&dev_base_lock);
> +
> + for
Adds to the network namespace a device list view. This view is emptied
when the unshare is done. The view is filled/emptied by a set of
function which can be called by an external module.
Replace-Subject: [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[EMAIL PROT
77 matches
Mail list logo
