[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMh2T5-56rFxWVdct2uAZYW1ZrKivWfS45V-mvhAfwyGaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:05:05 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>,
Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>,
Yotam Kenneth <yotamke@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 for-next 00/12] Add network namespace support in the RDMA-CM
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
>> I don't think that is what Doug said.
> Indeed. There is no need to scrap things, but if the design as it
> stands, and the intended means of creating objects for use in
> containers, is going to result in an unworkable network, then we have to
> re-evaluate how the container constructs are created, and that then has
> possible consequences for how we would get from an incoming packet to
> the proper container.
To be precise, do we agree that the issue here isn't "in the design as
it stands" but rather in a problem we found in the intended way of
assigning IP addresses through DHCP for the containers?
> I'm not trying to stop the "support train" here, but at the same time,
> if the train is headed for a bridge that's out....
So what's your concrete saying here? where should we go from here?
Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists