On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > 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 ? hmm, depends for whom, but yes, maybe CLONE_NEWMNTNS is more understandable than CLONE_NEWVFSNS ... of course, CLONE_NEW_MNT or CLONE_NEW_VFS would still be better ... anyway not a big deal, thanks for the feedback best, Herbert > C. > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers at lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers