From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Andrus Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] RFC: Device Namespaces Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:17:08 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20130822182118.GA28331@sergelap> <8761udlu0d.fsf@xmission.com> <871u4yddg4.fsf@xmission.com> <87ioxo4pm5.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ioxo4pm5.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 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: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Linux Containers , lxc-devel List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > 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. It's true that there was a singleton paradigm in binder that had to be overcome, but I agree with Janne. It really belongs in the IPC namespace, and I don't see any technical reason not to move it there. -Jeremy