At the mini-summit, and at other times, I've heard the repeated
complaint that having the word "container" in the name of the "task
container" framework leads to ambiguity. And separately from the
complaints, I've seen the awkwardness that people end up with when
they feel they have to distinguish between the "containers" abstract
concept, and "Paul's containers" ...

With the hope/prospect of having the framework merged some time after
the kernel summit, I guess now's a good time to bow to the pressure
and find some compromise that everyone likes, before we actually hit
mainline. (Maybe earlier would have been even better, but ...)

Of the various possible names that have been suggested, there are a
couple that (to me) stand out as good options:

- control groups
- task sets

The former (coined by Eric during a brainstorming session yesterday)
seems to capture the enforcement aspect of the framework (sysadmin can
use it to control the behaviour of processes, processes can't escape
from groups), without suggesting that it can only be used for resource
controllers (as some alternative names such as "resource groups"
imply) and would be a choice that I could be happy with.

Does anyone have strong views on other alternative names (or even the
idea of keeping "task containers")?

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers