On Tue, 13.03.12 00:02, Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 16:00 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Ooh, both will be available to choose from. I was trying to explain > > that there can be configuration only at one layer for any task so that > > it can be mapped to flat hierarchy. Where to apply the config will be > > selected by the user (or system tool). > > Thus in effect this is a false choice, since Lennart and assorted idiots > conspire against sanity by pushing systemd into our every orifice, and > since he just said systemd requires one of the two, the choice will be > made for us, lest we forfeit wanting to boot our system. I didn't say that that we require one of the two. I just pointed out that for us the first option makes more sense. Also, as I pointed out I am happy to adapt systemd to whatever Tejun decides. BTW, I actually believe the hierachial design of cgroups is pretty neat, since it allows us to label things hierarchially, so that for example user services can have their own labels all beneath a per-user label. So for the purpose of grouping things and naming them I very much appreciate hierarchial cgroups. For the purpose of actually applying resource controls I care much less for it, but I still do see its use. Lennart PS: Awesome choice of words! I totally appreciate how you talk to and about me. This creates such a strong urge inside of me to care about the problems you have with systemd and fix them for you. -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
