Hello. On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 07:48:40AM -0500, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Vipin, thank you very much for your persistence and patience. Yes, and thanks for taking my remarks into account. > Michal, as you've been reviewing the series, can you please take > another look and ack them if you don't find anything objectionable? Honestly, I'm still sitting on the fence whether this needs a new controller and whether the miscontroller (:-p) is a good approach in the long term [1]. I admit, I didn't follow the past dicussions completely, however, (Vipin) could it be in the cover letter/commit messages shortly summarized why cgroups and a controller were chosen to implement restrictions of these resources, what were the alternatives any why were they rejected? In the previous discussion, I saw the reasoning for the list of the resources to be hardwired in the controller itself in order to get some scrutiny of possible changes. That makes sense to me. But with that, is it necessary to commit to the new controller API via EXPORT_SYMBOL? (I don't mean this as a licensing question but what the external API should be (if any).) Besides the generic remarks above, I'd still suggest some slight implementation changes, posted inline to the patch. Thanks, Michal [1] Currently, only one thing comes to my mind -- the delegation via cgroup.subtree_control. The miscontroller may add possibly further resources whose delegation granularity is bunched up under one entry.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
