From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cgroup: Add new capability to allow a process to migrate other tasks between cgroups Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:53:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20161213185335.GD17672@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1481593143-18756-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20161213184057.GA17672@htj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Stultz Cc: Michael Kerrisk , lkml , Li Zefan , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" , Android Kernel Team , Rom Lemarchand , Colin Cross , Dmitry Shmidt , Todd Kjos , Christian Poetzsch , Amit Pundir , Dmitry Torokhov , Kees Cook , "Serge E . Hallyn" , Andy Lutomirski , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:47:19AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > > Control group control? The word control has a specific meaning for > > cgroups and that second control doesn't make much sense to me. > > But this would go against the long tradition of RAS syndrome and > things like "struct task_struct". :) Well, now that you put it that way, it's starting to look good. :) But, let's just go for CAP_CGROUP if everyone is okay with it. Thanks. -- tejun