Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 17:42 +0900, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
>
>>Hi Chandra,
>>
>>I believe that simplifying CKRM is the right thing to do.
>>At first glance, I have some questions and comments.
>
>
> Hi Maeda-san,
>
> Thanks for your review and comments. See below for my response
>
>>>+ * RESOURCE CONTROLLERS
>>>+ */
>>>+/* resource controller callback structure */
>>>+struct ckrm_res_ctlr {
>>>+ char res_name[CKRM_MAX_RES_NAME];
>>>+ int res_hdepth; /* maximum hierarchy */
>>
>>Nobody seems to care the res_hdepth member. Why?
>
>
> I don't understand what do you mean here. By nobody, you mean resource
> controllers ? If so, memory controller uses it.
Let me explain. This member seems to hold a maximum hierarchy depth
a resource controller supports. I imagine that ckrm core take care of
the number in order not to exceed the hierarchy depth limit somehow,
but I do not see any code using res_hdepth in the f0 patches.
Probably I misunderstood the purpose of res_hdepth. Could you explain
that?
Thanks,
MAEDA Naoaki
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
