On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600 "Chris Friesen" <cfrie...@nortel.com> wrote:
> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In > > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have: > > > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset, > > /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset. > > > > I am copying the container and the kernel guys. Perhaps, we can find an > > agreement (if we want to find one at all) and change all that > > Documentation to get consistent. > > I'd vote for "cgroups" or "containers", mounted at / or /sys/. > me, too. But single mount point just assumes "all necessary subsystems are mounter at once" So, /cgroup/<subsys>/ #this cannot handle multiple subsyses. or /cgroup/some_nick_name #just depends on users. Hmm. Making documentation to use the same mount point is not so bad. But in real usage, cgroup's mount point seems case-by-case. If libcgroup or libvirt shows some policy, it's good for users. /cgroup/<libcgroup's grouping nick name>/ ... or some. Thanks, -Kame > /opt feels more like where software should live, and /dev should be for > devices rather than capabilities/management. "cpuctl" and "cpuset" are > subsets of the full capabilities of cgroups, so they're suboptimal as > far as naming. > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org