Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:55:07 -0600 > ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Eric > > Eric, > > As you can see, the subject says "Proof-of-Concept" and every patch in the > the series says "RFC". All you did was point out problems with no help in > fixing those problems, and then gave a nasty Nacked-by before it even got > into a conversation. > > From this response, I have to say: > > It is not correct to nack a proof of concept that is asking for > discussion. > > So, I nack your nack, because it's way to early to nack this. I am refreshing my nack on the concept. My nack has been in place for good technical reasons since about 2006. I see no way forward. I do not see a compelling use case. There have been many conversations in the past attempt to implement something that requires a namespace of namespaces and they have never gotten anywhere. I see no attempt a due diligence or of actually understanding what hierarchy already exists in namespaces. I don't mean to be nasty but I do mean to be clear. Without a compelling new idea in this space I see no hope of an implementation. What they are attempting to do makes it impossible to migrate a set of process that uses this feature from one machine to another. AKA this would be a breaking change and a regression if merged. The breaking and regression are caused by assigning names to namespaces without putting those names into a namespace of their own. That appears fundamental to the concept not to the implementation. Since the concept if merged would cause a regression it qualifies for a nack. We can explore what problems they are trying to solve with this and explore other ways to solve those problems. All I saw was a comment about monitoring tools and wanting a global view. I did not see any comments about dealing with all of the reasons why a global view tends to be a bad idea. I should have added that we have to some extent a way to walk through namespaces using ioctls on nsfs inodes. Eric
