On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:03 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 23:46 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > struct cgroup_attach_state {
>
> nit: How about naming it cgroup_attach_request or
> cgroup_attach_request_state? I suggest this because it's not really
> "state" that's kept beyond the prepare-then-(commit|abort) sequence.
Other alternatives: cgroup_attach_context, cgroup_attach_txn
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
