Dhaval Giani wrote: > 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, If this is really a voting matter, I would vote for /sys even if it does require someone to do some work, and also the /dev/cpuset stuff to also move to /sys. IE /sys/cgroup/cpuset etc.. Leave / and /dev alone. thanks mark _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
