Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:33:06 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com>, tj@kernel.org
Cc:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] misc_cgroup: introduce misc.events and
 misc_events.local
Message-ID: <20210910103306.GA24156@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <988f340462a1a3c62b7dc2c64ceb89a4c0a00552.1631077837.git.brookxu@tencent.com>
 <20210909143702.GA13761@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <CAHVum0eGN=v1kLqHQg7HBESp8Kg4aGZFNd4XTpxfeyToXPmPVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8259b666-f3a4-6788-880c-38d679414bcb@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <8259b666-f3a4-6788-880c-38d679414bcb@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 01:20:37PM +0800, brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> Yeah, this is more reasonable. But there is still one question, whether we
> need to be consistent with other cgroup subsystems, events and events.loc=
al
> under v1 should not support hierarchy=EF=BC=9F

My take is that it's acceptable to present the v2-like files in v1 too
for the sake of simplicity since:
- this is not used yet,
- the v1 is less conventional and
- the presence of events.local would cater even to cases with tasks in
  inner nodes.

It'd be good to have Tejun's insight on this too.

Michal