[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C9B495D.70200@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:34:37 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: hadi@...erus.ca, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] net: Implement socketat.
On 09/23/2010 04:11 PM, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
>> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is
>> it THAT worse?
>>
>
> Anything to do with socket IO that requires namespace awareness
> applies for usage; it could be tcp/udp/etc socket. If it doesnt
> make any difference performance wise using one scheme vs other
> to write/read heavy messages then i dont see an issue and socketat
> is redundant.
That's what my point is about - unless we know why would we need it
we don't need it.
Eric, please clarify, what is the need in creating a socket in foreign
net namespace?
--
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