linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure

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]

Message-ID: <6599ad830709101138q7528eba7ia4fb618b8fe158cc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:38:10 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure

On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Unless folks have strong objection to it, I prefer "cptctlr", the way it is.
>

By definition any container (about to be renamed control group)
subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit
redundant.

Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched"

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/