From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.75]:35969 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728677AbeJANuh (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:50:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] ns: introduce binfmt_misc namespace To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: LKML , Linux FS Devel , James Bottomley , Al Viro , Linux API , "Eric W. Biederman" , Dmitry Safonov , Andrey Vagin , Linux Containers References: <20180930234628.25528-1-laurent@vivier.eu> From: Laurent Vivier Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 09:13:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 01/10/2018 à 06:45, Andy Lutomirski a écrit : > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM Laurent Vivier wrote: >> >> This series introduces a new namespace for binfmt_misc. >> > > This seems conceptually quite reasonable, but I'm wondering if the > number of namespace types is getting out of hand given the current > API. Should we be considering whether we need a new set of namespace > creation APIs that scale better to larger numbers of namespace types? > Yes, we need something to increase the maximum number of namespace types because this is the last bit in the clone() flags and the time namespace has already preempted it. Thanks, Laurent