From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][V2] remove the ns_cgroup Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:53:36 -0500 Message-ID: <20100927205336.GA1488@hallyn.com> References: <1285582453-6127-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@free.fr> <20100927125741.0df22f09.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100927203658.GA5320@hallyn.com> <20100927134619.ecefe9f4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100927134619.ecefe9f4.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Paul Menage List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org): > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:36:58 -0500 > "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > > > > > This patchset removes the ns_cgroup by adding a new flag to the cgroup > > > > and the cgroupfs mount option. It enables the copy of the parent cgroup > > > > when a child cgroup is created. We can then safely remove the ns_cgroup as > > > > this flag brings a compatibility. We have now to manually create and add the > > > > task to a cgroup, which is consistent with the cgroup framework. > > > > > > So this is a non-backward-compatible userspace-visible change? > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > Patch 1 is needed to let lxc and libvirt both control containers with > > same cgroup setup. Patch 3 however isn't *necessary* for that. Daniel, > > what do you think about holding off on patch 3? > > One way of handling this would be to merge patches 1&2 which add the > new interface and also arrange for usage of the old interface(s) to > emit a printk, telling people that they're using a feature which is > scheduled for removal. > > Later, we remove the old interface. I see no downside to that. thanks, -serge