Quoting Janne Karhunen (janne.karhunen@xxxxxxxxx): > 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? Eric's point is precisely that we may be able to work aruond it sufficiently that we don't need to. Noone has proposed a specific design let alone code, so it's premature to talk about merging anything :) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
