Paul Menage wrote: > On 9/11/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx): >>> At the mini-summit, and at other times, I've heard the repeated >>> complaint that having the word "container" in the name of the "task >>> container" framework leads to ambiguity. And separately from the >>> complaints, I've seen the awkwardness that people end up with when >>> they feel they have to distinguish between the "containers" abstract >>> concept, and "Paul's containers" ... >>> >>> With the hope/prospect of having the framework merged some time after >>> the kernel summit, I guess now's a good time to bow to the pressure >>> and find some compromise that everyone likes, before we actually hit >>> mainline. (Maybe earlier would have been even better, but ...) >>> >>> Of the various possible names that have been suggested, there are a >>> couple that (to me) stand out as good options: >>> >>> - control groups >>> - task sets >>> >>> The former (coined by Eric during a brainstorming session yesterday) >>> seems to capture the enforcement aspect of the framework (sysadmin can >>> use it to control the behaviour of processes, processes can't escape >>> from groups), without suggesting that it can only be used for resource >>> controllers (as some alternative names such as "resource groups" >>> imply) and would be a choice that I could be happy with. >>> >>> Does anyone have strong views on other alternative names (or even the >>> idea of keeping "task containers")? >> Purely subjectively I prefer control groups, but task sets is more >> descriptive about the implementation. > > I described it as "control groups" during the kernel summit > presentation and no-one seemed to object to that name. > > As far as I can tell, the general mood seems to be in favour of > "control groups" - no-one else has expressed a preference for "task > sets". > > I think it's more important to express the overall intention of the > feature rather than the implementation. Ted T'so (I think) asked at > the summit whether things other than tasks could be first-class > members of control groups - I said that currently they can't, but > people may find interesting ways to conveniently make non-task objects > first-class members in the future (rather than just holding reference > counts the way pages do currently). > >> So I'd have to vote for task sets. >> >> I like 'task containers', but it really is a pain trying to keep clear >> which containers I'm talking about from one sentence to the next. > > Right, enough people have said this to me now, and I've seen the > awkwardness that it entails - I don't want to add a subsystem to the > kernel that's forever referred to as "Paul's containers" :-) That's how I've been calling them for a while :) Now that LWN has announced the name rebrand in the article : http://lwn.net/Articles/249080/ I hope we can close the topic. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers