On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:16:00PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I think implementation wise this tends to make sense. > However it should have nothing to do with semantics. > > If we have a lot of independent resource controllers. Placing the > pointer to their data structures directly in nsproxy instead of in > task_struct sounds like a reasonable idea
Thats what the rcfs patches do. > but it should not be user visible. What do you mean by this? We do want the user to be able to manipulate the resource parameters (which are normally present in the data structures/resource objects pointed to by nsproxy - nsproxy->ctlr_data[]) -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
