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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans