[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B95EDB.1020400@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:02:59 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, balbir@...ibm.com, pj@....com,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] CGroup API: Add cgroup.api control file
Li Zefan wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2008 2:07 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Paul Menage wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Paul,
>>>
>>> Do we need to use a cgroup.api file? Why not keep up to date documentation and
>>> get users to use that. I fear that, cgroup.api will not be kept up-to-date,
>>> leading to confusion.
>> The cgroup.api file isn't meant to give complete documentation for a
>> control file, simply a brief indication of its usage.
>>
>
> But we don't have /proc/proc.api or /sys/sysfs.api ...
>
Yes, doing that would make the size of the kernel go out of control.
>> The aim is that most bits of the information reported in cgroup.api
>> are auto-generated, so there shouldn't be problems with it getting
>> out-of-date.
>>
>> Is it just the space used by the documentation string that you're
>> objecting to? The other function of the file is to declare a type for
>> each variable.
>>
I like the documentation aspect, it is the space that I object to.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists