Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:12:34AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >>> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> Roughly that sounds like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to me. But I would >>>> be happy to hear if someone has a better idea. >>> Rather than overload an existing config option, why not add one with the >>> specific semantics you want: CONFIG_UNSTABLE_UABI. The problem seems >>> like one which which may occur again, though one hopes not too often. I >>> guess the risk is that people will leave their subsystems depending on >>> it permanently (sysfs?), so it ends up being set all the time and >>> becomes as useless as EXPERIMENTAL... >> Then let SYSFS depend on UNSTABLE_UABI for the next 10 years and we have >> an excuse for breaking the ABI with each new kernel... >> >> Either the ABI is stable or it should not be exposed to users at all. > > If we need a new config for it. CONFIG_IMMATURE is the closest I > can think of. Pavel also has a CONFIG_NAMESPACES patch that he should be resending to andrew when 2.6.24-rc1-mm1 is released. pidns will go under this option, like all the other namespaces, and should protect the distros from shipping any immature namespace. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
