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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:49:48 -0700 From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> Cc: Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizf@...fujitzu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Adds a read-only "procs" file similar to "tasks" that shows only unique tgids On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Matt Helsley<matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote: > > Seriously, I don't think the name "tasks" is ugly. I think "tasks" > is a nice balance between overly verbose ("cgroup.tasks") and specificity. > If anything I think the new file should be called "processes", not > "cgroup.procs". The established convention was "subsys.foo". cgroup is not > a subsystem of itself hence the names "tasks" and "processes" are just fine. But that means that every time we add a new cgroup framework control file, we risk breaking people who happen to already have setups that use that name. At least if we prefix all new names with "cgroup." it's easier for people to avoid future clashes. I consider it a mistake on my part that I didn't give the "tasks" file the "cgroup" prefix when I originally morphed cpusets into cgroups. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists