From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754492AbZBDASj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:18:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751485AbZBDASb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:18:31 -0500 Received: from ns.km10614-05.keymachine.de ([87.118.102.170]:44463 "EHLO km10614-05.keymachine.de" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751134AbZBDASa (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:18:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:18:04 +0100 From: Harald Braumann To: Paul Menage Cc: sean finney , Gustavo Noronha , debian-devel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cgroup mount point Message-ID: <20090204011804.08f2b35a@sbs173> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830902031540ra4e00dejd844d584b0668a6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090202200013.GU3643@vespa.holoscopio.com> <20090202214153.GV3643@vespa.holoscopio.com> <20090203102416.GA8886@redhat.com> <87ljsnzo4v.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <1233671913.8902.53.camel@abacate.horta> <6599ad830902030855h1753f4a4o3a303b4dbddf10de@mail.gmail.com> <20090203184915.GA10004@glandium.org> <20090203185117.GB3359@mini-me.seanius.net> <6599ad830902031114t7de1b570p4ed5ec497e2e150e@mail.gmail.com> <20090204003847.308cd0df@sbs173> <6599ad830902031540ra4e00dejd844d584b0668a6e@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/fz4d6i=jf9XmiMiVynUJ9+J"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/fz4d6i=jf9XmiMiVynUJ9+J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:40:39 -0800 Paul Menage wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann > wrote: > > > > So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/ > > are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against > > cgroups/, to not allow it there? >=20 > Right, that's what I proposed a couple of emails earlier in this > thread. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you'd be against it, on the contrary, I took your explanation as another argument for using /dev and against /sys (/cgroups should not even be considered, IMHO).=20 The question was targeted at those, who oppose it. Cheers, harry --Sig_/fz4d6i=jf9XmiMiVynUJ9+J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmI3rwACgkQwMFqDB+mz27abgCgqI99o9cgglYAz/fpycAG44BE Z3kAn30HqmWowpil0l5Fn2Tao97NHzeg =MNL7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/fz4d6i=jf9XmiMiVynUJ9+J--