Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kirill Korotaev (dev at sw.ru):
>
>>Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>
>>>all,
>>>
>>>'pspace' sounds wrong when you know about the other namespaces :
>>>
>>>struct nsproxy {
>>> atomic_t count;
>>> spinlock_t nslock;
>>> struct uts_namespace *uts_ns;
>>> struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns;
>>> struct user_namespace *user_ns;
>>> struct namespace *namespace;
>>>};
>>>
>>>'proc_namespace' might be confusing, what about 'task_namespace' ?
>>
>>yes, I also wanted to point to this, but probably missed in a hurry.
>>task_ns/task_namespace looks fine, doesn't it?
>
>
> I still think pid_ns is more correct, but task_ns sounds nicer and is
> at any rate unambiguous.
I'm pretty sure the further we go the more things it will incorporate
(not related to pids :) ).
>>>'namespace' should probably be renamed to something like 'mnt_namespace' ?
>>
>>struct: mnt_namespace
>>fields: mnt_ns
>>
>>is the patch below ok for you?
>
>
> Based on a cursory glance, looks good to me.
thanks!
Kirill
