On Feb 19, 2008 9:17 PM, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps my primary concern with these *.api files was that I did not
> understand who or what the critical use or user was; who found this
> essential, not just nice to have.
>
Right now, no-one would find it essential. If/when a
Paul M wrote:
> I guess it's not essential, I just figured that if we had that
> information, it made sense to make it available to userspace. I guess
> I'm happy with dropping the actual exposed cgroup.api file for now as
> long as we can work towards reducing the number of control files that
> ju
On Feb 18, 2008 1:45 AM, Li Zefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> But we don't have /proc/proc.api or /sys/sysfs.api ...
True. And /proc is a bit of a mess. Having a similar API file for
sysfs sounds like a good idea to me.
>
> And is it better to describe the debug subsystem too?
>
Yes, prob
On Feb 19, 2008 1:57 PM, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Finally, it goes against the one thingie per file (at most, one scalar
> vector) that has worked well for us when tried.
Right, I like the idea of keeping things simple. But if you're going
to accept that a vector is useful, then
Li Zefan wrote:
> It seems to me this is a little messy.
Agreed. It looks too finicky to base real software on; that is, I
doubt that any robust application or user level software is going to
depend on it for serious automated self-configuration.
I haven't seen a serious problem with cpuset doc
Li Zefan wrote:
> 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 b
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,
>> lead
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.ap
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.
Why should the kernel carry so much of documentation in the image as strings?
--
Add a cgroup.api control file in every cgroup directory. This reports
for each control file the type of data represented by that control
file, and a user-friendly description of the contents.
A secondary effect of this patch is to add the "cgroup." prefix in
front of all cgroup-provided control fi
10 matches
Mail list logo
