Andrew Morton wrote: > Sorry, I've run out of confidence on these patches: heaps of rejects and > build errors and me making changes in an ameteurish fashion to try to fix > them. Plus I have a feeling that there's still some disagreement about > the actual implementation details in there. well, here's what i recall from the last exchanges we had : * eric said he wouldn't nak them if the status was marked experimental (mostly because uid checks haven't been done yet). that's a micro patch i have not sent yet. * herbert said he could use them. * so did the openvz team Agree ? if not, are the uid checks not being done the only argument to declare the user namespace not mergeable yet (in 2.6.21) ? > So I'm going to drop the lot. These, in this order: > > introduce-and-use-get_task_mnt_ns.patch > nsproxy-externalizes-exit_task_namespaces.patch > user-namespace-add-the-framework.patch > user-ns-add-user_namespace-ptr-to-vfsmount.patch > user-ns-hook-permission.patch > user-ns-prepare-copy_tree-copy_mnt-and-their-callers-to-handle-errs.patch > user-ns-implement-shared-mounts.patch > user_ns-handle-file-sigio.patch > user-ns-implement-user-ns-unshare.patch > # > rename-attach_pid-to-find_attach_pid.patch > attach_pid-with-struct-pid-parameter.patch > remove-find_attach_pid.patch > statically-initialize-struct-pid-for-swapper.patch > explicitly-set-pgid-sid-of-init.patch > # > > > are at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/nsproxy/ ok. got them. > I seem to have folded two inappropriate patches into > uts-namespace-remove-config_uts_ns.patch so perhaps it should be split up > again, or just renamed. > > Could someone please fix them up, retest, re-changelog and resubmit them > all for re-review? We can definitely improve the testing ... I'll take them back in the -lxc patchset and we will give them a good test shake in our labs before resending. thanks, C.