[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080412183514.GO9785@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:35:14 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: sukadev@...ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, serue@...ibm.com,
matthltc@...ibm.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
hpa@...or.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Helper patches for PTY namespaces
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:29:33AM -0700, sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
>
> Some simple helper patches to enable implementation of multiple PTY
> (or device) namespaces.
>
> [PATCH 1/4]: Propagate error code from devpts_pty_new
> [PATCH 2/4]: Factor out PTY index allocation
> [PATCH 3/4]: Move devpts globals into init_pts_ns
> [PATCH 3/4]: Enable multiple mounts of /dev/pts
>
> This patchset is based on earlier versions developed by Serge Hallyn
> and Matt Helsley.
*boggle*
Care to explain how that "namespace" is different from devpts instance?
IOW, why the devil do you guys ignore Occam's Razor?
Frankly, this nonsense has gone far enough; I can buy the need to compensate
for shitty APIs (sockets, non-fs-based-IPC, etc.), but devpts *is* *a*
*fucking* *filesystem*. Already. And as such it's already present in
normal, real, we-really-shouldn't-have-any-other-if-not-for-ancient-stupidity
namespace.
Why not simply allow independent instances of devpts and be done with that?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists