From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] make clone_children a flag Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:03:38 +0400 Message-ID: <4EE99BCA.1010505@parallels.com> References: <1323614738-7405-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1323614738-7405-4-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20111213153921.GE25802@google.com> <4EE80A0D.7090808@cn.fujitsu.com> <4EE84B9A.90901@parallels.com> <20111214181852.GB20380@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111214181852.GB20380@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Tejun Heo Cc: Li Zefan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbottomley@parallels.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, bsingharora@gmail.com, devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com On 12/14/2011 10:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:09:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> That's indeed confusing, and it comes from the fact that we always >> inherit clone_children from the parent - which is sane, IMHO. So >> this flag only has any value in establishing the initial behaviour >> of the top root cgroup. I wonder then if it wouldn't better to just >> be explicit and fail in this case ? > > I don't think all current behaviors are sane and if not let's change > them, but those things have to be explicit with proper description and > rationale. > 140 % agree to that. As I said, I wrongly believed it to be functionally equivalent when I sent it, but missed the flags remount check. If you believe the behavior we now get is saner, I can rewrite the Changelog and resend it.