On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:46 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> The reason I liked /dev/cgroup was because cpusets could be >> mounted at /dev/cpuset or /dev/cgroup/cpuset. My concern with /cgroup >> is that a ls "/" now becomes larger in size. But I'll take your vote >> for it as +1 for /cgroup. > > /dev/pts is a decent precedent for doing it under /dev, although it does > deal with actual devices. cgroups do not. There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev with filesystems that are not devices. Jan _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
