* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-02-27 09:20:31]: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:05 -0800 > 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. 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? > > > It sounds problem to me. > > Hmm..1st commit to kernel/cgroup.c is 2007-10-19, then 2.6.24 is the oldest one. > But I think distro's tools for cgroup is not as old as... > Hmm, backport to 2.6.25 is enough ? > Balbir, how do you think ? I think you are familiar with libcgroup. > Actually this problem fixes an issue that we've seen in libcgroup, where a file would have read permission (force_empty), but reading it would fail, Porting back to 2.6.25 would be nice (since the memcg merge) -- Balbir _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
