linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION] Minimal controller code for a quick start

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: <6599ad830802071249g45cb2d6eybd00c1bef07cf5aa@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:49:25 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	"Pavel Emelyanov" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linux Containers" <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION] Minimal controller code for a quick start

On Feb 7, 2008 12:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> While on the subject, could someone document struct cgroup_subsys.

There's documentation for all the methods in Documentation/cgroup.txt

> particular, I've wondered why we have: cgroup_subsys::can_attach() and
> not use a return value in cgroup_subsys::attach()?

We could do in theory do that, but it would make the recovery logic in
cgroup.c:attach_task() more complex - it would have to be able to deal
with undoing a partial attach. It seems simpler to just split it into
two phases, given that most cgroups don't appear to have attachment
conditions anyway.

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/