[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1232505410.15636.142.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:36:50 -0800
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:07 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800
> Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has
> > no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the
> > machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted?
> >
> multilply-mounted means its own hierachy can be created per mount point ?
I suspect that's what Paul meant -- multiple, distinct instances of the
subsystem could be mounted.
> If so, signal subsystem can be used instead of noop.
Agreed.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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