lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
    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.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-17 03:03    [W:2.368 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site