On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> That being said, is there a valid reason why binder is part of device
>> namespace here instead of IPC?
>
> I think the practical issue with binder was simply that binder only
> allows for a single instance and thus is does not play nicely with
> containers.
It's true that there was a singleton paradigm in binder that had to be
overcome, but I agree with Janne. It really belongs in the IPC namespace,
and I don't see any technical reason not to move it there.
-Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
