On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM, KAMEZAWA
Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Open issues:
>>
>> - should the specification be via a name= option as in this patch, or
>> should we simply use the "device name" as passed to the mount()
>> system call? Using the device name is more conceptually clean and
>> consistent with the filesystem API; however, given that the device
>> name is currently ignored by cgroups, this would lead to a
>> user-visible behaviour change.
>>
>
> IMHO, name= option is good because people think device name for pseudo file
> system has no meanings. I think just leaving it as "no meaning" is better.
>
Yes, I guess that makes sense. That was Li Zefan's opinion too.
>>
>> +#define MAX_CGROUP_ROOT_NAMELEN 64
>> +
>
> I don't like long names but....isn't this too short ? How about NAME_MAX ?
>
>
>> /*
>> * A cgroupfs_root represents the root of a cgroup hierarchy,
>> * and may be associated with a superblock to form an active
>> @@ -93,6 +95,9 @@ struct cgroupfs_root {
>>
>> /* The path to use for release notifications. */
>> char release_agent_path[PATH_MAX];
>> +
>> + /* The name for this hierarchy - may be empty */
>> + char name[MAX_CGROUP_ROOT_NAMELEN];
>> };
>>
> If you don't want to make cgroupfs_root bigger,
>
> cgroupfs_root {
> ......
> /* this must be the bottom of struct */
> char name[0];
> }
>
> Is a choice.
I'd rather avoid something like that since I think it's less readable
- I'd probably just make the name into a pointer in that case.
>
> BTW, reading a patch, any kind of charactors are allowed ?
Yes, other than \000 of course. I guess maybe I should use
seq_escape() to print the name to avoid confusion in the event that
people put whitespace in there, or else just ban whitespace (or maybe
all non-alphanumeric chars).
Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
