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:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800
From:	Paul Jackson <>
To:	"Paul Menage" <>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 2/6] Cpusets hooked into containers

Paul M wrote:
>  It basically makes "cpuset" an alias for "container"
> in the relevant /proc directories if CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API is
> defined.

Paul M - I never replied to your initial CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API
patch proposal - sorry.

An aspect of this proposal never made sense to me, so I put it aside
and went on to other things.

It is important to me that the current cpuset API be maintained.  The
cpuset API seems to be working well, for a number of users.

Occassionally I will agree to subtle API changes (see another thread
concerning cpu_exclusive and sched_domain cpuset flags), but not
anything likely to break user code outright, except under duress.

But I presume this CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API option means I either
get to build a kernel that supports the new container API, or a kernel
that supports the old cpuset API.  That does not seem useful to me.

We need to support both API's, at runtime, at the same time.  Not a choice
of API's at build time with a kernel CONFIG option.

Perhaps I am missing something ...

                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <> 1.925.600.0401
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists