[PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

[Ryo Tsuruta]

From: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:44:28 -0700

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:20:40 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700
> > Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200
> > > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this. 
> > > The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new
> > > definition for the same term: "block I/O".
> > > 
> > > "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's
> > > perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite
> > > horrid.  The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the
> > > existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio'
> > > at all.
> > > 
> > > At least, I think that's what's happening.  Perhaps the controller
> > > really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'?  If so, that's an odd thing
> > > to tell userspace about.
> > > 
> > Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ?
> > 
> 
> Well. blockio_cgroup has the same character count and is more specific.

How about blkio_cgroup ?

Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta