On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:23:35 -0700 "Paul Menage" <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Well I suppose that as a non-back-compatible change we should feed it into 2.6.25.x as well. It's a bit unusual, but so doing will reduce the number of hey-where-did-my-file-go discoveries. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
