Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] net: Implement socketat.

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:11:21 -0400

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:53 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:

> Why does it matter? You told, that the usage scenario was to
> add routes to container. If I do 2 syscalls instead of 1, is
> it THAT worse?
> 

Anything to do with socket IO that requires namespace awareness
applies for usage; it could be tcp/udp/etc socket. If it doesnt
make any difference performance wise using one scheme vs other
to write/read heavy messages then i dont see an issue and socketat
is redundant.

If i was to pick blindly - I would say whatever approach with
less syscalls is better even if just a "slow" path one time
thing. I could create a scenario which would make it bad
to have more syscalls.

But theres also the simplicity aspect in doing:
fdx = socketat namespace foo
use fdx for read/write/poll into foo without any wrapper code.
Vs
enter foo
fdx = socket ..
read/write fdx
leave foo.

> Just like it used to before the enter.
> 

So if i enter foo, get a fdx, leave foo i can use it in
ns0 as if it was in ns0?

cheers,
jamal