> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > > to manipulate. > > > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. > > libcgroup uses a configuration file specified by the user to do this. You are right. But fixed mount point help to make quick cute script for sys-admin. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
