Paul Menage wrote: > 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 And "noprefix" is not documented in cgroups.txt, so I guess not many people know this option. Even libcgroup doesn't handle it. > 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? > I think we can never know.. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
