Quoting Paul Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > 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.
Sorry, please clarify - are you saying that now you do understand, or that I should explain? > But if indeed that's not possible, then I guess we need some sort of > option specifying whether to create kids empty, or inheriting. Paul (uh, Menage :) should I do a patch for this or have you got it already? thanks, -serge - 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/
