From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755290AbYB2BL2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:11:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764043AbYB2BDo (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:03:44 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:44688 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763778AbYB2BDm (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:03:42 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=cOrNglV7T1O0IN/m30VaTwxmZ9WdJSJulH01vA+HbNW5lJmFCp2CzPyaigOeJezAa 26gVrEQc08Ad9kPFpuBLQ== Message-ID: <6599ad830802281703hb3cff06r8ba4755f705a0879@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:03:33 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Paul Jackson" Subject: Re: [RFC] Prefixing cgroup generic control filenames with "cgroup." Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, xemul@openvz.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20080228173618.139f5bb4.pj@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6599ad830802281314s25c033d6tc021725ae28aef8d@mail.gmail.com> <20080228173618.139f5bb4.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Paul Jackson wrote: > > We could accomplish that much by decreeing that future new kernel > generated names that we might add follow some stronger convention, > such as the cgroup_ or appropriate subsystem prefix. Subsystem-created files already have an appropriate prefix. > No need to > change the existing well known names for this reason. But that's part of my point - is it reasonable to describe a system that was only introduced in 2.6.24 as "well-known"? > > Actually, in terms of 'common names used > by humans' some of these names, "tasks" and "notify_on_release", date > back much earlier than that. Please don't rename these two files in > cgroups; and of course absolutely don't rename them in cpusets. No, I wasn't planning to make any changes to cpusets. > > Please don't end up with different names of these files, depending on > whether you're in cgroups or cpusets, either. That already happens - when mounted as the "cpuset" filesystem, we have names like "mems_allowed". When mounted as cgroups, we have names like cpuset.mems_allowed. > > > Could we do something like auto-prefixing user-created directories with a > > fixed string so that there is no way in which the user can cause a > > collision with kernel-created files? > > Lordy lordy -- a bunch of intrusive, complicating crap to solve a > non-existent problem (sorry for the indelicate choice of words ;). No, I don't like that idea either. Paul