Hey, On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:02:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > A slightly off topic comment, for where this thread has gone but > relevant if we are talking about cgroup namespaces. > > If don't implement compatibility with existing userspace, they get a > nack. A backwards-incompatible change should figure out how to remove > the need for any namespaces. > > Because that is what namespaces are about backwards compatibility. Are you claiming that namespaces are soley about backwards compatibility? ie. to trick userland into scoping without letting it notice? That's a very restricted view and namespaces do provide further isolation capabilties in addition to what can be achieved otherwise and it is logical to collect simliar funtionalities there. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
