From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: RFC: Device Namespaces Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:23:46 -0700 Message-ID: <87ioxo4pm5.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20130822182118.GA28331@sergelap> <8761udlu0d.fsf@xmission.com> <871u4yddg4.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Janne Karhunen's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:05:32 +0300") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Janne Karhunen Cc: Linux Containers , lxc-devel List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Janne Karhunen writes: > That being said, is there a valid reason why binder is part of device > namespace here instead of IPC? I think the practical issue with binder was simply that binder only allows for a single instance and thus is does not play nicely with containers. Eric