lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/4] namespacefs: Proof-of-Concept
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:55:07 -0600
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
>>
>> Eric
>
> Eric,
>
> As you can see, the subject says "Proof-of-Concept" and every patch in the
> the series says "RFC". All you did was point out problems with no help in
> fixing those problems, and then gave a nasty Nacked-by before it even got
> into a conversation.
>
> From this response, I have to say:
>
> It is not correct to nack a proof of concept that is asking for
> discussion.
>
> So, I nack your nack, because it's way to early to nack this.

I am refreshing my nack on the concept. My nack has been in place for
good technical reasons since about 2006.

I see no way forward. I do not see a compelling use case.

There have been many conversations in the past attempt to implement
something that requires a namespace of namespaces and they have never
gotten anywhere.

I see no attempt a due diligence or of actually understanding what
hierarchy already exists in namespaces.

I don't mean to be nasty but I do mean to be clear. Without a
compelling new idea in this space I see no hope of an implementation.

What they are attempting to do makes it impossible to migrate a set of
process that uses this feature from one machine to another. AKA this
would be a breaking change and a regression if merged.

The breaking and regression are caused by assigning names to namespaces
without putting those names into a namespace of their own. That
appears fundamental to the concept not to the implementation.

Since the concept if merged would cause a regression it qualifies for
a nack.

We can explore what problems they are trying to solve with this and
explore other ways to solve those problems. All I saw was a comment
about monitoring tools and wanting a global view. I did not see
any comments about dealing with all of the reasons why a global view
tends to be a bad idea.

I should have added that we have to some extent a way to walk through
namespaces using ioctls on nsfs inodes.

Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-18 20:23    [W:0.410 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site