On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:26:26PM +0200, Nikola Forró wrote: > Hello, > > I've rebased libcgroup in Rawhide to the new upstream release, > libcgroup 2.0, with initial cgroupv2 support: > https://github.com/libcgroup/libcgroup/releases/tag/v2.0 > > There are no incompatible ABI changes, SONAME of the library remains > "libcgroup.so.1". > > This should make libcgroup relevant in Fedora once again, as cgroupv2 > is the default since Fedora 31. > > That makes me wonder - does anybody still use libcgroup or libcgroup- > tools in Fedora? In a systemd world apps should be pretty wary of using libcgroup to make changes. Systemd expects apps to honour the "single writer" view of the cgroups hierarchy, and thus only considers it valid for apps to make changes if they've requested that systemd delegate a particular sub-tree to them[1]. This was already true in v1, but iiuc there's better enforcement around delegation in v2. Regards, Daniel [1] https://systemd.io/CGROUP_DELEGATION/ -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
