On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to > add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is > it THAT worse? > Anything to do with socket IO that requires namespace awareness applies for usage; it could be tcp/udp/etc socket. If it doesnt make any difference performance wise using one scheme vs other to write/read heavy messages then i dont see an issue and socketat is redundant. If i was to pick blindly - I would say whatever approach with less syscalls is better even if just a "slow" path one time thing. I could create a scenario which would make it bad to have more syscalls. But theres also the simplicity aspect in doing: fdx = socketat namespace foo use fdx for read/write/poll into foo without any wrapper code. Vs enter foo fdx = socket .. read/write fdx leave foo. > Just like it used to before the enter. > So if i enter foo, get a fdx, leave foo i can use it in ns0 as if it was in ns0? cheers, jamal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
