From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup: add cgroup_all_get_from_[fd/file]() Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:18:25 -1000 Message-ID: References: <20221010235845.3379019-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20221010235845.3379019-3-yosryahmed@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xm8Uch19R6NmYEbBkjcqkxQLt/DtdpQviAbU+5kyHeg=; b=HBXnfJdLfLouo9iEPM66BHhv/PtDj/o/wxFo1cOhKl/R5e1EWC6xOAGDiaw0T1frh+ QuCSxWZLMbBAtcHs2EZ+10XspyM7Vsi6Z2OnpUhJ2Y7m8RSSikhiqgQJ4lDMYZ425Yei bhO7e/Focu7uTT1h+Nx1QpZs4+BZ1Ze/bDoqcyY5Hav29eBAW8/8a9eNjtplJArxP8/x N/qDDfqGIiGI+SwaNDbzujkHfMOvd8T25luGAFsbVcgKx9FkDQqFSPhzZjHysqGag6Bu NWfJxrXndFcrX22F6bvnLh6q9rqZhP1FnjtBuhe7M46mjW95TnA0Bya8gFdyvjGQypH5 I5oQ== Sender: Tejun Heo Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Yosry Ahmed Cc: Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Yonghong Song , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, bpf-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 05:14:24PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:11 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:58:44PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > Add cgroup_all_get_from_fd() and cgroup_all_get_from_file() that > > > support both cgroup1 and cgroup2. > > > > Looks generally good. How about cgroup_v1v2_ as the prefix? > > Thanks for taking a look. > > I don't have a strong opinion here. I picked cgroup_all_* vs > cgroup12_* or cgroup_v1v2_* because it's easier on the eyes. I'd rather have something which is really distinctive because the difference is rather subtle. > My preference would have been to rename the old versions to > cgroup_dfl_* instead, but like you said this might confuse existing > users. Yeah, it's confusing to have parallel file / id lookup functions with different behaviors and we've asssumed that all these from-userspace lookups are cgroup2 only for a while now. > Anyway, I am fine with whatever you choose. Let me know if you need me > to send a v2 for changing the prefix. Please send an updated version. I don't mind whether it's cgroup12_ or cgroup_v1v2_. Thanks. -- tejun