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

Peter Dolding oiaohm at
Tue Jul 16 22:06:50 UTC 2013

Serge You took it the wrong way I was not trying to be defensive.
That was my version of what the heck is wrong response.  Followed
policy and it wrong you kinda want to find out what is wrong.  Its if
something is out like this other people are going to go south.

So this is interesting there is a miss match between git and what the
website displays.   Fact that its old it the webmaster needs to be
informed so it can be fixed.      I have changed the who this is going

Webmaster   and the
Maintainers file in git don't match.    Would suspect other sections
in doc directory are also out.   Apparently this is one of the
things that broke when was breached and has not been fixed
yet.   Nothing in that section of appears to be updated
since the 19 Aug 2011. breach was the 31 of Aug 2011.
So I would say the script or whatever was done to sync there has not
been operating because it was removed cleaning up from the breach.
If its never going to be operating sections there should be just
deleted so it does not lead people up garden path..

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn at> wrote:
> 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 Apparently by your response this might be a bit out of date.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.
> -serge

More information about the Containers mailing list