From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932634AbYB1Vbs (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932270AbYB1VbX (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:23 -0500 Received: from smtp116.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([66.196.96.89]:26321 "HELO smtp116.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932531AbYB1VbU (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:20 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: jnodukEVM1nAWv2mPSM1k3R03hJFkD899KgnNqGSw0R8X9AYrrFrpdUklOlWDAB9sG7MVf0n1o6kf0alwgASlDkyPk9J9KdZSVzoPFgFfeP3RcTiPrzmK4DTcrogIVpYfQOLUOhvI1ObBFM- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:28:35 -0600 From: serge@hallyn.com To: Paul Menage Cc: Linux Containers , LKML , Balbir Singh , Peter Zijlstra , Pavel Emelianov , Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC] Prefixing cgroup generic control filenames with "cgroup." Message-ID: <20080228212835.GB1232@vino.hallyn.com> References: <6599ad830802281314s25c033d6tc021725ae28aef8d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830802281314s25c033d6tc021725ae28aef8d@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Paul Menage (menage@google.com): > All control files created by cgroup subsystems are given a prefix > corresponding to their subsystem name. But control files provided by > cgroups itself have no prefix. Currently that set of files is just > "tasks", "notify_on_release" and "release_agent", but that set is > likely to expand in the future. To reduce the risk of clashes, it > would make sense to prefix these files and any future ones with the > "cgroup." prefix. > > The only reason that I can see *not* to do this would be for > compatibility with 2.6.24. Do people think this is a strong enough > reason to leave the existing names? If distros are planning to ship > products based on 2.6.24, presumably they'd be adding their own > patches anyway, so they could add a trivial prefix change patch too. > (I realise this discussion would have been more useful *before* 2.6.24 > shipped, but I didn't quite get round to it ...) > > A compromise might be to keep "tasks" unprefixed, and say that future > names get the "cgroup." prefix; in this case I'd be inclined to add > the prefix to notify_on_release and release_agent on the grounds that > there's much less chance of breaking anyone with those files since (I > suspect) they're much less used. > > Note that if you mount a cgroup filesystem with the "noprefix" option, > which is what the cpuset filesystem wrapper does, no subsystems have > prefixes, and in this case the "cgroup." prefix wouldn't be used > either. So this doesn't affect any users that explicitly mount cpusets > rather than cgroups. > > Thoughts? To me it seems quite logical that files belonging to the cgroup subsystem would have no prefix, and I don't see any good reason to do so. -serge