On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: > > > 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. > > > > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? > sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's > suggestion of /cgroup? > I vote for /cgroup as well. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
