lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
    From
    From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
    Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:44:28 -0700

    > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:20:40 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700
    > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200
    > > > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
    > > >
    > > > Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this.
    > > > The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new
    > > > definition for the same term: "block I/O".
    > > >
    > > > "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's
    > > > perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite
    > > > horrid. The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the
    > > > existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio'
    > > > at all.
    > > >
    > > > At least, I think that's what's happening. Perhaps the controller
    > > > really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'? If so, that's an odd thing
    > > > to tell userspace about.
    > > >
    > > Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ?
    > >
    >
    > Well. blockio_cgroup has the same character count and is more specific.

    How about blkio_cgroup ?

    Thanks,
    Ryo Tsuruta


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-17 03:47    [W:0.025 / U:88.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site