On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:07:31 +0800 Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.. How about this method ? - add "noprefix" to "to-be-removed" list. - add "WARNING: noprefix option will be removed in 2.6.32 (or 2.6.31)" now - remove "noprefix" in 2.6.31-rc or later Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
