Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Nice work Eric ! Thanks. > "struct net" is not a very descriptive name imho, why dont stick "ns" or > "namespace" somewhere ? My fingers rebelled, and struct net seems to be sufficiently descriptive. However that is a cosmetic detail and if there is a general consensus that renaming it to be struct netns or whatever would be a more readable/maintainable name I can change it. > Do we really need yet another "struct kmem_cache *net_cachep;" ? > The object is so small that the standard caches should be OK (kzalloc()) The practical issue at this point in the cycle is visibility. With a kmem cache it is easy to spot ref counting leaks or other problems if they happen. Without it debugging is much more difficult. While I am touched with your faith in my ability to write perfect patches I think it makes a lot of sense to keep the cache at least until sometime after the network namespace code is merged and people generally have confidence in the implementation. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
