Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
