From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: Naming the "Task containers" framework Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:55:07 +0200 Message-ID: <46DE7CFB.6020200@fr.ibm.com> References: <6599ad830709042254t2d5c4f54y964c74e3c6d9a6ab@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6599ad830709042254t2d5c4f54y964c74e3c6d9a6ab-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@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: Paul Menage Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Paul Menage wrote: > At the mini-summit, and at other times, I've heard the repeated > complaint that having the word "container" in the name of the "task > container" framework leads to ambiguity. And separately from the > complaints, I've seen the awkwardness that people end up with when > they feel they have to distinguish between the "containers" abstract > concept, and "Paul's containers" ... > > With the hope/prospect of having the framework merged some time after > the kernel summit, I guess now's a good time to bow to the pressure > and find some compromise that everyone likes, before we actually hit > mainline. (Maybe earlier would have been even better, but ...) > > Of the various possible names that have been suggested, there are a > couple that (to me) stand out as good options: > > - control groups > - task sets task controllers ? C. > The former (coined by Eric during a brainstorming session yesterday) > seems to capture the enforcement aspect of the framework (sysadmin can > use it to control the behaviour of processes, processes can't escape > from groups), without suggesting that it can only be used for resource > controllers (as some alternative names such as "resource groups" > imply) and would be a choice that I could be happy with. > > Does anyone have strong views on other alternative names (or even the > idea of keeping "task containers")? > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers >