>From a user's point of view (who helps with triaging bugs and some other stuff from time to time), so feel free to consider it or not.
David Edmundson - 03.12.20, 12:15:52 CET: > Ultimately this isn't really dealing with cgroups directly but with > the manager to control them, systemd. > > That's correct usage, kernel docs of cgroups say to go via a > controller for write operations. However that at point is it worth > naming the library ksystemd? I'd say that depends on whether it at some point could be extended to support another cgroups controller daemon or not. I don't see any popular one at this point in time, however this might change. > It might cause some contention due to people who get angsty at a name, > but it's a lot more fitting. It would then give us a place to dump a > lot of other wrappers (especially logind) that we're seeing > duplicated in a bunch of places throughout KDE. Of course if you like to extend it more towards systemd, a name change would make sense. While I know and teach what control groups can do, I do not really care about the functionality they offer at the moment on my desktop machines. I use elogind with Plasma both on Debian Sid and on Devuan Ceres which sets up a CGroup V2 structure by default, but does not do any of the resource control stuff that Systemd offers. Control groups, logind and things like that sounds like integration with services and functionalities of the host operating system. So I wondered whether it would make sense to generalize that. However, that might just be too much abstraction. There is Phonon, which does that for audio, but basically I just used whatever backend was recommended at a time. And AFAIR there has been times where one of the backends did not even work correctly for some reason. Ciao, -- Martin
