Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem

From: Matt Helsley
Date: Tue Jan 20 2009 - 21:37:07 EST

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:07 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800
> Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> > 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?
> >
> multilply-mounted means its own hierachy can be created per mount point ?

I suspect that's what Paul meant -- multiple, distinct instances of the
subsystem could be mounted.

> If so, signal subsystem can be used instead of noop.


-Matt Helsley

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at