Quoting KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki (kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600 > "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > > > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In > > > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have: > > > > > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset, > > > /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset. > > > > > > I am copying the container and the kernel guys. Perhaps, we can find an > > > agreement (if we want to find one at all) and change all that > > > Documentation to get consistent. > > > > I'd vote for "cgroups" or "containers", mounted at / or /sys/. > > > me, too. > > But single mount point just assumes "all necessary subsystems are mounter at once" > So, > /cgroup/<subsys>/ #this cannot handle multiple subsyses. > or > /cgroup/some_nick_name #just depends on users. > > Hmm. Making documentation to use the same mount point is not so bad. But in real > usage, cgroup's mount point seems case-by-case. > If libcgroup or libvirt shows some policy, it's good for users. > > /cgroup/<libcgroup's grouping nick name>/ ... I'm lazy so I always use /cgroup or actually /cg. I do the same thing with mounting /sys/kernel/security under /security, so maybe /sys/cgroup actually makes sense :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
