Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:52:39PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at us.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> I agree we should rename. I had suggested pid_space to "rhyme" wiht >>> pidmap, but received no ack/nack. I meant to send another mail, >>> specially after the is_init() collision recently. >>> | >>> | 'namespace' should probably be renamed to something like >>> | 'mnt_namespace' ? > >>> While at it, should we change CLONE_NEWNS to CLONE_MNTNS ? >> We need to retain the NEW in the clone flags. CLONE_NEWMNTNS perhaps. >> Otherwise with clone at least we get impression of backward semantics. > > hmm, got no comment to my suggestion to use VFS instead > of MNT or mount, was it silently ignored, disliked, or > just lost? mount point namespace is probably a bit more 'intuitive' than VFS namespace ? C.