On Friday, March 17, 2017 1:58:58 PM EDT Johannes Berg wrote: > > > I guess this is intended behavior? > > > > I had thought this was intended behavior as well but I see that a > > patch is already prepped and tested to make this not happen. At any > > rate it wasn't appearing to affect my usecase. > > I can't actually see how it'd affect any usecase, since you really need > to check inside the new netns what's going on etc. anyway, and you > don't really want to pass such identifiers across the boundaries. But > preserving it makes more sense, if only for debugging and making sure > we won't run out of numbers :) OK, I can see how preserving this makes sense for debugging. Understood and thanks for getting this namespace support in. Mark > > johannes
