Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:41:42 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jes@sgi.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
       sekharan@us.ibm.com, jtk@us.ibm.com, hch@lst.de,
       viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, sgrubb@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com,
       menage@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction
Message-Id: <20060928194142.cece62bb.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060929020232.756637000@us.ibm.com>
References: <20060929020232.756637000@us.ibm.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 24

How might this play with Paul Menage's <menage@google.com> patch posted
earlier today on lkml:

  [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Generic container system

My cpuset_exit() call is getting popular - both you guys seem to have
designs on it.

Separate question - I guess that your task watcher mechanism, the
way it uses linker magic now, would not enable a loadable module
to plug into these various fork/exit/... hooks.  Is that right?

Such an ability for loadable modules to get callouts on fork/exit
would be useful to some ... it could also be a controversial ability.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/