linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management

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:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:00:46 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc:	dev@...nvz.org, vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

On 11/7/06, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> > > So why is this CONFIG_* option separate?  When would I ever not
> > > want it?
> >
> > If you weren't bothered about having the legacy semantics.
>
> You mean if I wasn't bothered about -not- having the legacy semantics?
>
> Let me put this another way - could you drop the
> CONFIG_CPUSETS_LEGACY_API option, and make whatever is needed to
> preserve the current cpuset API always present (if CPUSETS themselves
> are configured, of course)?

Yes.

>
> If you're reluctant to do so, why?

As I said, mainly /proc pollution.

But it's not a big deal, so I can drop it unless there's a strong
argument from others in favour of keeping it.

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/