On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:20:40 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200 > > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller > > > > Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this. > > The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new > > definition for the same term: "block I/O". > > > > "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's > > perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite > > horrid. The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the > > existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio' > > at all. > > > > At least, I think that's what's happening. Perhaps the controller > > really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'? If so, that's an odd thing > > to tell userspace about. > > > Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ? > Well. blockio_cgroup has the same character count and is more specific. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
