On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:43:46AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation.
I don't think that is what http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/12/426 conveyed! > They just didn't want you calling them containers. Yes that too. > > Anyway, summarizing on "why nsproxy", the main point (I think) is about > > using existing abstraction in the kernel. s/abstraction/"implementation detail" then :) > But nsproxy is not an abstraction, it's an implementation > detail/optimization. -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
