From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757899Ab1LNSTD (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:19:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:35216 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757558Ab1LNSTA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:19:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:18:52 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Glauber Costa Cc: Li Zefan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbottomley@parallels.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, bsingharora@gmail.com, devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] make clone_children a flag Message-ID: <20111214181852.GB20380@google.com> References: <1323614738-7405-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1323614738-7405-4-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20111213153921.GE25802@google.com> <4EE80A0D.7090808@cn.fujitsu.com> <4EE84B9A.90901@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EE84B9A.90901@parallels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:09:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > That's indeed confusing, and it comes from the fact that we always > inherit clone_children from the parent - which is sane, IMHO. So > this flag only has any value in establishing the initial behaviour > of the top root cgroup. I wonder then if it wouldn't better to just > be explicit and fail in this case ? I don't think all current behaviors are sane and if not let's change them, but those things have to be explicit with proper description and rationale. Thanks. -- tejun