[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203125744.GC3788@vespa.holoscopio.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:57:45 -0200
From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...aslivre.org>
To: Ben Finney <ben+debian@...finney.id.au>
Cc: debian-devel@...ts.debian.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: cgroup mount point
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:44:00PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
> > > /dev/cpuset, /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
> >
> > Putting new mount points in / is not really acceptable, so that rules
> > out the first two. /opt is just totally wrong, since that is intended
> > for add on software packages. /dev/ feels a little odd, since it is
> > not really device nodes
>
> I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
> are nothing to do with device nodes, so definitely don't belong in
> ‘/dev/’ either.
The message you quoted is from Daniel Berrange, not me. Could you also
tell your rationale for not agreeing with /?
Regards,
Cascardo.
> Since they're a filesystem mapping “for browsing and manipulation
> from user space” of a kernel facility, I think ‘/sys/cgroups/’ is
> appropriate.
>
> --
> \ “It's my belief we developed language because of our deep inner |
> `\ need to complain.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin |
> _o__) |
> Ben Finney
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists