| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200610301116.04780.dmccr@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:16:04 -0500 From: Dave McCracken <dmccr@...ibm.com> To: ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net Cc: dev@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices On Monday 30 October 2006 11:09 am, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on > the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the > controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining. > > However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel > API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we > latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad. > > One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports > hierarchy but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the > initial versions. Would that work? Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now? I agree that we should design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for it I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies. In addition to the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the paradigm presented to the users. I'm a firm believer in not giving users options they will never use. Dave McCracken - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists