Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:03:33 -0800 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Prefixing cgroup generic control filenames with "cgroup." |
| |
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: > > We could accomplish that much by decreeing that future new kernel > generated names that we might add follow some stronger convention, > such as the cgroup_ or appropriate subsystem prefix.
Subsystem-created files already have an appropriate prefix.
> No need to > change the existing well known names for this reason.
But that's part of my point - is it reasonable to describe a system that was only introduced in 2.6.24 as "well-known"?
> > Actually, in terms of 'common names used > by humans' some of these names, "tasks" and "notify_on_release", date > back much earlier than that. Please don't rename these two files in > cgroups; and of course absolutely don't rename them in cpusets.
No, I wasn't planning to make any changes to cpusets.
> > Please don't end up with different names of these files, depending on > whether you're in cgroups or cpusets, either.
That already happens - when mounted as the "cpuset" filesystem, we have names like "mems_allowed". When mounted as cgroups, we have names like cpuset.mems_allowed.
> > > Could we do something like auto-prefixing user-created directories with a > > fixed string so that there is no way in which the user can cause a > > collision with kernel-created files? > > Lordy lordy -- a bunch of intrusive, complicating crap to solve a > non-existent problem (sorry for the indelicate choice of words ;).
No, I don't like that idea either.
Paul
| |