On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Matt Helsley<[email protected]> wrote: > > Seriously, I don't think the name "tasks" is ugly. I think "tasks" > is a nice balance between overly verbose ("cgroup.tasks") and specificity. > If anything I think the new file should be called "processes", not > "cgroup.procs". The established convention was "subsys.foo". cgroup is not > a subsystem of itself hence the names "tasks" and "processes" are just fine.
But that means that every time we add a new cgroup framework control file, we risk breaking people who happen to already have setups that use that name. At least if we prefix all new names with "cgroup." it's easier for people to avoid future clashes. I consider it a mistake on my part that I didn't give the "tasks" file the "cgroup" prefix when I originally morphed cpusets into cgroups. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
