linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 14 May 2010 13:57:14 +0200
From:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
	James Kosin <jkosin@...comgrp.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
	jsafrane@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 13:42 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Heh! agreed, but we are a small population and moreover a large
>> population would benefit from systemd and parallel boot.
>
> CONFIG_CGROUP=y isn't a requirement for parallel boot. People have been
> doing that for years without it.
>
> And I'm not against systemd using cgroups per-se, I'm against it
> mandating it. It could simply not use them and not provide whatever it
> needs them for when not present.
>
> CONFIG_CGROUP is an option, so people can say no.
>

I think that is reasonable. There should be a fallback for folks who
want to run their own kernel (though I cannot imagine why they would
want to turn off cgroups ;-) ).

Thanks!
Dhaval
--
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/