From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] bpf: add BPF_PROG_ATTACH and BPF_PROG_DETACH commands Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:08:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20160817150849.GC6299@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1471442448-1248-1-git-send-email-daniel@zonque.org> <1471442448-1248-4-git-send-email-daniel@zonque.org> <20160817142047.GB4021@htj.duckdns.org> <95e8b773-416f-72cc-4045-dd10d94e6484@zonque.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: , , , , , , , To: Daniel Mack Return-path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:56042 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752106AbcHQPJR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:09:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <95e8b773-416f-72cc-4045-dd10d94e6484@zonque.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, again. Just one addition. On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > created. To bring this more in line with how cgroups usually work, I > guess we should add code to copy over the bpf programs from the ancestor > once a new cgroup is instantiated. Please don't copy the actual configuration or program. Every case where a cgroup controller took this approach turned out pretty badly. It gets really confusing. Thanks. -- tejun