linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] splitting cgroup.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOS58YMAQ0siUa=j8KsdWiAM3rqtZTvbOvmGc3L3cU0zwpuHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:30:23 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] splitting cgroup.c

Hello, Li.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> I agree that splitting is necessary but IMHO splitting usually tends
>> to go too far.  Maybe we can split it into two and think about further
>> splitting later on?  e.g. internal logic vs. userland interfacing.
>
> This isn't feasible. The feasible way is to split by functionality,
> which I think was the way taken by perf developers.

Eh? Feasible or desirable?  How can it be not feasible?  Why?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/