Paul Menage wrote: > On Feb 16, 2008 2:07 AM, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Paul Menage wrote: >> >> Hi, Paul, >> >> Do we need to use a cgroup.api file? Why not keep up to date documentation >> and >> get users to use that. I fear that, cgroup.api will not be kept up-to-date, >> leading to confusion. > > The cgroup.api file isn't meant to give complete documentation for a > control file, simply a brief indication of its usage. >
But we don't have /proc/proc.api or /sys/sysfs.api ... > The aim is that most bits of the information reported in cgroup.api > are auto-generated, so there shouldn't be problems with it getting > out-of-date. > > Is it just the space used by the documentation string that you're > objecting to? The other function of the file is to declare a type for > each variable. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mnt]# cat cgroup.api debug.current_css_set_refcount u64 debug.current_css_set u64 debug.taskcount u64 debug.cgroup_refcount u64 cgroup.release_agent string Path to release agent binary cgroup.api unknown Control file descriptions cgroup.releasable u64 Is this cgroup able to be freed when empty cgroup.notify_on_release u64 Should the release agent trigger when this cgroup is empty cgroup.tasks string Thread ids of threads in this cgroup It seems to me this is a little messy. And is it better to describe the debug subsystem too? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
