On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I don't think that's too big a deal - a write can always fail at the whim of a cgroups subsystem, so this would just be a hint to a tool that it shouldn't even bother trying to write to the file. It should be able to handle a failure. But I don't see why we can't figure out the mode automatically based on whether or not there's a write handler defined for the control file. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
