linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Enable controllers for default hierarchy by default.

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: <CA+qeAOrabPcat8t9vwkeN7QZ0-DQ4F_uzeW5WRs6DyranEGzyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:56:22 +0800
From:	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng081251@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, lizefan@...wei.com,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Enable controllers for default hierarchy by default.

Hi tj,

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello, Dongsheng.
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 07:27:32PM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> When we create a cgroup in unified hierarchy, we have to enable
>> controllers in cgrp_dfl_root.subtree_control manually. From
>> my practice, I did not find the benefit we disable controllers
>> in cgrp_dfl_root by default.
>
> Hehe, I actually enjoyed the frankness.  No fudging around, basically
> just "I used it for a bit and it didn't feel useful to me".
>
>> As I am a newbie to cgroup, please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I don't think being new to cgroup is important here.  Regardless of
> the specific area, you should be able to build and argue the
> rationales for the changes you propose.  This is important because not
> only the changes need to be justified but also the process will help
> you actually think about and analyze the changes that you're
> proposing.  If you can't build strong enough rationales for a given
> change, it probably shouldn't be proposed.
>
> Here, your rationale is nothing more than "I played with it 5 mins and
> it seemed weird to me".  There was no effort in understanding the
> overall design, use cases or implications.  You're just driving by
> shooting random patches expecting other people to do what you should
> have done before submitting the patches.  If you want to change the
> behavior, please first study and think about it and ask specific
> questions when unsure.

Yes, I met something unsure in my studying. And I thought sending a
patch to show my question is an acceptable way. Sorry for that.

> Submitting basically random patches expecting
> others to argue for or against it is one of the worst ways to learn
> about a subsystem.  Please don't ever do this regardless of the
> subsystem in question.

Shame on me and sorry for troubling you. I really have some questions in
my study, but I should not post them via a patch.

I need more reading and thinking.
If finally I can't answer my question by myself or google.
Then I will ask you experts.

Thanx
>
> Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/