From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932554AbYB1VgS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:36:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752116AbYB1VgG (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:36:06 -0500 Received: from smtp117.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([66.196.96.90]:47549 "HELO smtp117.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750895AbYB1VgG (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:36:06 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: 3YxRm8sVM1l.2rUL7wPutLRcBwLeq72_9qhX3qK3okgxATGsvUXC9rvd0ehev32IwvDb0Zpptq9szY9SXVyIvOBWpMQXakLOiXxDmDZSEBuPUEYbdz.lsQmvkO4IXlJla0Pnma6GrbFW0kA- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:33:19 -0600 From: serge@hallyn.com To: Paul Menage Cc: Andrew Morton , containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, xemul@openvz.org, pj@sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Prefixing cgroup generic control filenames with "cgroup." Message-ID: <20080228213319.GC1232@vino.hallyn.com> References: <6599ad830802281314s25c033d6tc021725ae28aef8d@mail.gmail.com> <20080228132142.4d4b1eef.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <6599ad830802281328q162d0585v3ac6b45a119a4a05@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830802281328q162d0585v3ac6b45a119a4a05@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): > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Morton > wrote: > > > > > Because if something is in /foo/bar/cgroup/notify_on_release then > > prefixing the filename with "cgroup_" seems pretty pointless. > > > > The point would be to avoid situations where a user has code that > creates a group directory called "foo", and then in a future kernel > release cgroups introduces a control file called "foo". If it's > prefixed, then the user just has to avoid creating groups prefixed by > "cgroup." or any subsystem name, so collisions will be less likely. Have you already run into that case? You said the set of files belong to cgroup itself is likely to increase - do you have some candidates in mind? Perhaps ones which are likely to conflict with choice taskgroup names? If anything I'd say add a 'prefix_cgroup' mount option and use it to decide whether to prefix or not (rather than use the noprefix option). -serge