On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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, exposing the "noprefix" option externally was one of the mistakes I made when developing cgroups. It seems to me really unlikely that anyone is using "noprefix" for anything other than implicitly when mounting the "cpuset" filesystem. So I'd be inclined to just forbid it if we're mounting more than just the cpuset subsystem. A bit of a nasty abstraction violation, but it makes more sense overall. The only problem is that someone *might* be using it - do we have any way to determine how, and how big do they have to be before we care? Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
