Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

[Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:20:40 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200
> > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
> > 
> > Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this. 
> > The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new
> > definition for the same term: "block I/O".
> > 
> > "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's
> > perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite
> > horrid.  The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the
> > existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio'
> > at all.
> > 
> > At least, I think that's what's happening.  Perhaps the controller
> > really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'?  If so, that's an odd thing
> > to tell userspace about.
> > 
> Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ?
> 

Well. blockio_cgroup has the same character count and is more specific.