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

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