Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ struct cftype {
>>>
>>> */
>>> int (*write_s64) (struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, s64 val);
>>>
>>> - void (*trigger) (struct cgroup *cgrp, unsigned int event);
>>> + int (*trigger) (struct cgroup *cgrp, unsigned int event);
>> To be more name-compatible with the other read_X/write_X functions,
>> how about write_void rather than trigger?
>
> Because it's not a write actually, this is just some kick-up which came
> from the user space. And the fact, that it is triggered via the sys_write
> is just a VFS-based API constraints. Besides, if we ever have a binary
> API with cgroups, this trigger can be triggered :) via some other system
> call, rather than write.
So, Paul, do you have any more objections to the patch? If no, I will
prepare the set for Andrew, all the more so, I noticed, that there's
no ability to reset the failcounter, which is required and can be easily
implemented with the triggers.
>> Paul
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
