[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem

[Paul Menage]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Helsley <matthltc at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>        My feeling is this should be a signal subsystem rather than a NOOP
> subsystem. Then, if users want the grouping for something besides
> signaling, it doesn't matter if they don't issue any signals via the
> signal.send file. Also, I think Paul's suggestion would be just as
> useful for a signal subsystem.

The signal subsystem is similar to the "no-op" subsystem in that
neither of them actually need any state - in principle, it could be
useful to attach a signal subsys to multiple mounted hierarchies, to
provide signal semantics for each of them.

Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has
no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the
machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted?

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers