Paul Jackson wrote: > Pavel wrote: >>>> 3. Configfs may be easily implemented later as an additional >>>> interface. I propose the following solution: >>>> ... >> Resource controller has nothing common with confgifs. >> That's the same as if we make netfilter depend on procfs. > > Well ... if you used configfs as an interface to resource > controllers, as you said was easily done, then they would > have something to do with each other, right ;)?
Right. We'll create a dependency that is not needed. > Choose the right data structure for the job, and then reuse > what fits for that choice. > > Neither avoid nor encouraging code reuse is the key question. > > What's the best fit, long term, for the style of kernel-user > API, for this use? That's the key question. I agree, but you've cut some importaint questions away, so I ask them again: > What if if user creates a controller (configfs directory) > and doesn't remove it at all. Should controller stay in > memory even if nobody uses it? This is importaint to solve now - wether we want or not to keep "empty" beancounters in memory. If we do not then configfs usage is not acceptible. > The same can be said about system calls interface, isn't it? I haven't seen any objections against system calls yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
