| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800 From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> To: matthltc@...ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote: > > My feeling is this should be a signal subsystem rather than a NOOP > subsystem. Then, if users want the grouping for something besides > signaling, it doesn't matter if they don't issue any signals via the > signal.send file. Also, I think Paul's suggestion would be just as > useful for a signal subsystem. The signal subsystem is similar to the "no-op" subsystem in that neither of them actually need any state - in principle, it could be useful to attach a signal subsys to multiple mounted hierarchies, to provide signal semantics for each of them. Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted? Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists