Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view

[Daniel Lezcano]

> Then you lose the ability for each namespace to have its own routing entries.
> Which implies that you'll have difficulties with devices that should exist
> and be visible in one namespace only (like tunnels), as they require IP
> addresses and route.

I mean instead of having the route tables private to the namespace, the 
routes have the information to which namespace they are associated.

> 	- keep a "flat" model where network ressources have a new identifier 
> > which is the network namespace pointer. The idea is to move only some 
> > network informations private to the namespace (eg port range, stats, ...)
>
>
> Sorry, I don't get the second idea with only some information private to
> namespace.
>
> How do you want TCP_INC_STATS macro look?

I was thinking in TCP_INC_STATS(net_ns, field) 
SNMP_INC_STATS(net_ns->tcp_stat, field)

> In my concept, it would be something like
> #define TCP_INC_STATS(field) SNMP_INC_STATS(current_net_ns->tcp_stat, field)
> where tcp_stat is a TCP statistics array inside net_namespace.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/