Xpl++ wrote: > Paul Menage ??????: >> ... >> >> A compromise might be to keep "tasks" unprefixed, and say that future >> names get the "cgroup." prefix; in this case I'd be inclined to add >> the prefix to notify_on_release and release_agent on the grounds that >> there's much less chance of breaking anyone with those files since (I >> suspect) they're much less used. >> > This makes most sense to me. It won't break any existing software > (most likely) while it seems reasonable to leave 'tasks' unprefixed as > this is something that any software using any subsystem of cgroup > would be using anyway and it is not that much associated with a > particulat subsystem. > And it makes most sense to me too, though I still doubt name collision will be a problem. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
