[Devel] Re: [patch 0/1] [RFC][net namespace] veth ioctl management

[Dmitry Mishin]

On Monday 19 February 2007 20:30, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano at fr.ibm.com> writes:
> > I will have look to *your* etun interface. But, PLEASE, look at the net
> > namespace network patches (L2/L3) which were rfc'ed, posted several
> > months ago.
>
> I have, and I have commented.
>
> > Unfortunatly, you didn't say that when Andrey sent it this summer and
> > when Dmitry ported it to the namespaces and when it was integrated to lxc
> > patchset by Cedric and when I put the L3 namespace on top of it.
>
> Mostly it is six of one half a dozen of the other as far as the actual
> implementation is concerned.  The practical difference is etun is not tied
> in any way shape or form to namespaces, whereas veth appears to be.
>
> > Eric, opensource is about collaboration.
>
> Yes.  Exactly.  That is why I am suggesting that we try to use something
> simpler than ioctl.
>
> The process is about collaborating to find the best technical solution
> we can find in a timely manner.
>
> Currently the L2 stuff derived from OpenVZ appears to be completely
> unmergable because of how the patchset is constructed.
Please, explain. For me, your code is not mergeable as well.
 
>
> I am very frustrated that you are attacking me about not cooperating.
> I have made comments (that were hopefully constructive) all along the
> way.  At some points in time I was busy so I could not look at things
> in detail, but I have tried across the whole spectrum of the
> namespaces effort.  I finally sat down and wrote my own network
> namespace implementation because some very important points were not
> getting addressed and I had some novel ideas on how to solve some of
> the problems. So I figured the contrast would be useful.  The
> containers list wasn't my primary audience of my RFC but I was
> surprised that I received no comments there.
>
> Plus this is the biggest problem I see with the OpenVZ derived network
> namespace effort is lack of cooperation with the people who matter.
> The maintainers of the network stack.  Sure people who are actually
> going to use a network namespace have to agree that the code will
> solve the problem in a usable way but if the maintainers of the
> network stack don't like or can't be interested the code is never
> going anywhere.
Fully agree. But as I can see, your code arises no more comments, than ours. 
So, we need to find other ways. Do you have more ideas?


-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers