On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Well the devcg was meant to be a temporary stopgap solution until we >> > have device namespaces, and this seems to entrench them further, but >> > it does make sense. >> >> Just out of interest, what would such device namespace actually >> do other than switch the device access on/off according to callers >> namespace? > > It could also support mapping of <type>:maj:min inside namespace to > a different device on host. In most cases we probably don't actually > want that, but it's an interesting enough thing to be worth thinking > through. It sounds to me that what you really want to do is likely use case and device specific. Hence the idea about namespace specific ioctl device action(s) might not be so bad. It would certainly be less intrusive than tampering with device registrations or rerouting nod file_operations for instance. Classic on/off toggle case is easy though, but are there enough reasons for merging such 'noop' namespace? -- Janne _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
