Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched: new clone flag CLONE_NEWCGROUP for cgroup namespace
From: Serge Hallyn <hidden>
Date: 2014-07-24 17:01:26
Also in:
cgroups, lkml
Quoting Aditya Kali (adityakali-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org):
CLONE_NEWCGROUP will be used to create new cgroup namespace.
This is fine and I'm not looking to bikeshed, but am wondering - did you consider any other ways beside unshare (i.e. a new mount option to cgroupfs)? If so, do you have a list of the downsides of those? (I mainly ask bc clone flags are still a scarce commodity)
Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <redacted>
Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- include/uapi/linux/sched.h | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h index 34f9d73..2f90d00 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sched.h@@ -21,8 +21,7 @@ #define CLONE_DETACHED 0x00400000 /* Unused, ignored */ #define CLONE_UNTRACED 0x00800000 /* set if the tracing process can't force CLONE_PTRACE on this clone */ #define CLONE_CHILD_SETTID 0x01000000 /* set the TID in the child */ -/* 0x02000000 was previously the unused CLONE_STOPPED (Start in stopped state) - and is now available for re-use. */ +#define CLONE_NEWCGROUP 0x02000000 /* New cgroup namespace */ #define CLONE_NEWUTS 0x04000000 /* New utsname group? */ #define CLONE_NEWIPC 0x08000000 /* New ipcs */ #define CLONE_NEWUSER 0x10000000 /* New user namespace */-- 2.0.0.526.g5318336 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers