> 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/
