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

[Eric W. Biederman]

Kirill Korotaev <dev at sw.ru> writes:

> Eric,
>
>> 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.
> veth is not tied to namespaces as well.
> it is possible to create a pair of veth devices in host system for example.

But the code is because it has that push/pop thing in it.  At least it
did last time I looked.  Daniels changes sound like there where making
namespace assumptions in the veth configuration code, but I could
be wrong there.  I do agree that there is no fundamental reason why
namespace assumptions should be made it just that they were :(

>> Currently the L2 stuff derived from OpenVZ appears to be completely
>> unmergable because of how the patchset is constructed. 
> you didn't say it before... :)
> can you point to *exact* issues we can fix?
> I really think that commenting each other approaches
> and fixing this we can go quicker.

Agreed. 

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers