Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:34:21PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:35:14 +0800 >> Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:00:12 +0800 >>>> Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now we have 'stat' file in both memory and cpuacct subsystems. If we >>>>> mount these 2 subsystems with option 'noprefix', the creation of 'stat' >>>>> file for cpuacct will fail, but without any notificatin to the user. >>>>> >>>>> With this patch, we fail the mount/remount in this case. >>>>> >>>> Hm, shouldn't we allow "noprefix" to be effective only agaisnt cpuset ? >>>> I think it's just for backward-compatibility of cpuset. >>>> (I don't like the option at all.) >>>> >>> Yes, this mount option was introduced for cpuset. But it has been here for >>> a long time and people may use it when mounting other cgroup subsystems, >>> then is it OK to change to restrict its use within cpuset only? >> Asking libcgroup people may be appropriate...added CC. > > We just realized that we were not handling the noprefix usage in I guess handling noprefix will increase complexity of libcgroup? since we can't figure out which subsystem the file belongs to by looking at the prefix of the file. > libcgroup. From the pov of the library, the option should either not > exist for any subsystem or for all of them. Anything else would mean > having to add special cases. > I don't see how to totally remove 'noprefix' while keep the backward compatibility of cpuset, so I think we have to reserve it, and fix name collision caused by this option. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
