From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD9872A for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2896D1BC for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:45:35 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20161027174535.GA3347@cloud> References: <1477589981.3431.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1477589981.3431.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [LAST-MINUTE TOPIC] cgroup API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:39:41AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 10:29 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Would it make sense to have a session to try to resolve the current > > cgroup v2 API disagreement? > > > > In the interest of brevity, I'm not going to rehash the issues here, > > but in extremely short summary, they include tasks in non-leaf > > cgroups as well as whether threads in the same process can be in > > different cgroups. > > We could do it later on Tuesday, that way it might be possible to > include more of the containers crowd than are going to KS. Do we have sufficient representation for both sides of that disagreement at KS?