> Would it then make sense to just
> default to (parent_set - sibling_exclusive_set) for a new sibling's
> value?
Which could well be empty, which in turn puts one back in the position
of dealing with a newborn cpuset that is empty (of cpus or of memory),
or else it introduces a new and odd constraint on when cpusets can be
created (only when there are non-exclusive cpus and mems available.)
> An option is fine with me, but without such an option at all, cpusets
> could not be applied to namespaces...
I wasn't paying close enough attention to understand why you couldn't
do it in two steps - make the container, and then populate it with
resources.
But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of
option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
