On 09/13/2012 09:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 13-09-12 10:18:32, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, Michal. >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> I would like to see use_hierarchy go away. The only concern I have is >>> to warn only if somebody is doing something wrong (aka flat >>> hierarchies). Or better put it this way. Do not warn in cases which do >>> not change if use_hierarchy is gone or default changes to 1. >>> An example: >>> root (use_hierarchy=0) >>> | \ >>> | A (use_hierarchy=0) >>> | >>> B (use_hierarachy=1) >>> |\ >>> C D >>> >>> is a perfectly sane configuration and I do not see any reason to fill >>> logs with some scary warnings when A is created. There will be no >>> semantical change in this setup When use_hierchy is gone. >>> >>> So the only thing I am proposing here is to warn only if something >>> should be fixed in the configuration in order to be prepared for fully >>> hierarchical (and that is a second level of children from root with >>> use_hierachy==0). >>> >>> Does it make more sense now? >> >> Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't warn if 0 >> .use_hierarchys don't make any behavior difference from when they're >> all 1, right? > > Exactly. 1st level of children under the root is exactly this kind of > setup. > >> If so, I have no objection. Will incorporate your updated version. > > Thanks! > I want oppose it as well, but I believe part of this exercise is to make the need to have hierarchy widespread. Warning on the case 1st-level-only case helps with that, even if we make more noise than we should. The reason I supported Tejun's proposal originally, is that I think that if we make the wrong amount of noise, being wrong by a surplus is better than being wrong by a deficit, in this case. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
