Single process controlling all cgroups sounds like looking in right direction but wrong solution.

Serge Hallyn serge.hallyn at
Mon Jul 15 12:32:16 UTC 2013

Quoting Peter Dolding (oiaohm at
> I followed the Maintainers File.
> M:	Paul Menage <menage at>
> M:	Li Zefan <lizf at>
> L:	containers at

Odd, my version has

L:      containers at
L:      cgroups at

The cgroups entry was added in November 2011 according to git-blame.
I don't know why the version is so old.

Still I think that should be patched to remove containers at .  I
originally objected to the cgroup@ list creation, but since I
do not believe the relevant cgroup folks read the containers@
list any more, I don't think containers@ should be listed -
certainly not first.

> S:	Maintained
> F:	include/linux/cgroup*
> F:	kernel/cgroup*
> F:	mm/*cgroup*
> Apparently by your response this might be a bit out of date.  I just read
> lwm and *Tejun Heo is not even as a main maintainer.  Listed as a sub part
> maintainer.   By the maintainers file discussions should be in *
> containers at where I sent this.
> Tejun Heo please inform if this is still correct.  Its either update this
> or tell to get your title correct in future.
> Serge I am trying to follow policy that is why I posted here in the first
> place.

That sounds unnecessarily defensive - I wasn't complaining, just trying
to help your email get to where it would be best discussed  :)  Sorry
that it involves an extra step (resending), but I didn't want to simply
reply cc:ing cgroups@, as the email thread tends to get funky that way.


More information about the Containers mailing list