Eric W. Biederman wrote: > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Eric, pick an appropriate new non-conflicting number NOW. > > Done. My apologies for the confusion. I thought the > way Cedric and the IBM guys were testing someone would have > shouted at me long before now. > >> This adds unnecessary extra work for Andrew Morton, which he has >> enough of already. > > Cedric made a good point that we will have conflicts of code > being added to the same place in nsproxy.c and the like. So > I copied Andrew to give him a heads up. here's a suggestion, we could keep the net namespace unshare patch out of david's tree, let andrew merge and release a new -mm and, then, send the net namespace unshare patch to andrew. that should keep nsproxy out of the andrew's merge challenge. But david's tree will miss the unshare part for a while. As for the clone flags, the values *must not* conflict but the patches probably will. C. > I will gladly do what I can, to help. Working against 3 trees > development at the moment is a bit of a development challenge. > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
