On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:35:55 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When I wrote tools for maintain cgroup, I can't find which file is > writable intarfece or not via cgroup file systems. (finally, I did > dirty approach.) > IMHO, showing "this file is read-only" in explicit way is useful > for user-land (tools). In other story, a file whose name sounds read-only > may have "trigger" operation and support reseting. In this case, > "writable" is informative. Well, we have compatibility issues here. If we make this change, and people write tools which depend upon that change then those tools might break when run upon older kernels. Or they need back-compatibility additions, which increases the testing burden of those tools. One way in which we could improve this situation is to backport these changes into earlier kernels, although I don't know which versions. What do we think? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
