Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] CGroup API: Add cgroup.api control file

[Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>]

Paul M wrote:
> I guess it's not essential, I just figured that if we had that
> information, it made sense to make it available to userspace. I guess
> I'm happy with dropping the actual exposed cgroup.api file for now as
> long as we can work towards reducing the number of control files that
> just return strings, and make use of the structured output such as
> read_uint() miore.

I could certainly go along with that ... reducing the proportion of
control files returning untyped strings.

My sense of kernel-user API's is that usually the less said the better.
Identify the essential information that one side requires from the
other via a runtime API, and pass only that.  API's represent a
lifetime commitment, so the less promised the better.

Perhaps my primary concern with these *.api files was that I did not
understand who or what the critical use or user was; who found this
essential, not just nice to have.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214