From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932397Ab1LOHET (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:04:19 -0500 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:54712 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932268Ab1LOHEQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:04:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4EE99BCA.1010505@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:03:38 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Li Zefan , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] make clone_children a flag 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> <20111214181852.GB20380@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20111214181852.GB20380@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/14/2011 10:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. > 140 % agree to that. As I said, I wrongly believed it to be functionally equivalent when I sent it, but missed the flags remount check. If you believe the behavior we now get is saner, I can rewrite the Changelog and resend it.