Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762719AbZATBwz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:52:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754960AbZATBwo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:52:44 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:2701 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756098AbZATBwn (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:52:43 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: x-gmailtapped-by:x-gmailtapped; b=rBjo88m4h13MF6e9tkqsS12TP8j5FUuz0LBv+M+5EaByg6fMvVaQ+c9MhF7P0rdAT V7XE21oGt8bsM5hdnX+KQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1232072445.7955.40.camel@localhost> References: <20090109143226.b79d21b4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830901082226h6d47053cp801dafb67b6e2bc9@mail.gmail.com> <20090109153219.dd8c153d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1232072445.7955.40.camel@localhost> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800 Message-ID: <6599ad830901191752o53926bdbve593301aeff7330f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem From: Paul Menage To: matthltc@us.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Containers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-GMailtapped-By: 172.24.198.73 X-GMailtapped: menage Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1080 Lines: 23 On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Helsley wrote: > > My feeling is this should be a signal subsystem rather than a NOOP > subsystem. Then, if users want the grouping for something besides > signaling, it doesn't matter if they don't issue any signals via the > signal.send file. Also, I think Paul's suggestion would be just as > useful for a signal subsystem. The signal subsystem is similar to the "no-op" subsystem in that neither of them actually need any state - in principle, it could be useful to attach a signal subsys to multiple mounted hierarchies, to provide signal semantics for each of them. Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted? Paul -- 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/