Hi Andrew, On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What the change is, why it is being made, what the user-visible > presentation is, what the impact upon users is, why we think it won't > be a problem, etc? The stuff which should have been right there from > day one, before the code change was even made? The change is that previously when cgroup_clone() was called (currently only from the unshare path in ns_proxy cgroup, you'd get a new group named "node_$pid" whereas now you'll get a group named after just your pid.) The only users who would notice it are those who are using the ns_proxy cgroup subsystem to auto-create cgroups when namespaces are unshared - something of an experimental feature, which I think really needs more complete container/namespace support in order to be useful. I suspect the only users are Cedric and Serge, or maybe a few others on containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And in fact it would only be noticed by the users who make the assumption about how the name is generated, rather than getting it from the /proc/<pid>/cgroups file for the process in question. Whether the change is actually needed or not I'm fairly agnostic on, but I guess it is more elegant to just use the pid as the new group name rather than adding a fairly arbitrary "node_" prefix on the front. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
