Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] uts namespaces: Introduction

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Introduce utsname namespaces.  Instead of a single system_utsname
> > containing hostname domainname etc, a process can request it's
> > copy of the uts info to be cloned.  The data will be copied from
> > it's original, but any further changes will not be seen by processes
> > which are not it's children, and vice versa.
> >
> > This is useful, for instance, for vserver/openvz, which can now clone
> > a new uts namespace for each new virtual server.
> >
> > This patchset is based on Kirill Korotaev's Mar 24 submission, taking
> > comments (in particular from James Morris and Eric Biederman) into
> > account.
> >
> > Some performance results are attached.  I was mainly curious whether
> > it would be worth putting the task_struct->uts_ns pointer inside
> > a #ifdef CONFIG_UTS_NS.  The result show that leaving it in when
> > CONFIG_UTS_NS=n has negligable performance impact, so that is the
> > approach this patch takes.
> 
> Ok.  This looks like the best version so far.
> 
> I like the utsname() function thing to shorten the 
> idiom of  current->uts_ns->name.
> 
> We probably want to introduce utsname() and an init_utsname()
> before any of the other changes, and then perform the substitutions,

This is the same as what Sam is saying, right?  Just making sure I
understand.

> before we actually change the code so the patchset can make it
> through a git-bisect.  This will also allows for something

Ok, I've finally got the rest of git doing my bidding, I'll go read
up on git-bisect.

thanks for the comments,
-serge