From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][V2] remove the ns_cgroup Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:50:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4CA1F299.3000603@free.fr> 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: 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, Paul Menage , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 09/27/2010 10:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. > Right, that makes sense. Do you will take the patches #1 and #2, drop the patch #3, and I send a new patch with the printk warning ? Or shall I resend all ? Thanks -- Daniel