On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:22:06AM -0400, jamal wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 01:51 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Take advantage of the new abstraction and allow network devices > > to be placed in any network namespace that we have a fd to talk > > about. > > So ... why just netdevice? could you allow migration of other > net "items" eg a route table since they are all tagged by > netns? migrating route table entries makes no sense because a) they refer to devices and configuration that does not exist in the target namespace; they only make sense within their netns context b) they are purely virtual and you get the same result from deleting and recreating them. Network devices are special because they may have something attached to them, be it hardware or some daemon. -David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
