| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:58:07 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com CC: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nauman@...gle.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests Balbir Singh wrote: > * Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> [2009-09-16 00:12:37]: >> Why it is so bad to have multiple ways to configure? I think that it >> rather gains in flexibility of configurations. >> > > The main issue I see is user confusion and distro issues. If a distro > compiles cgroups and dmsetup provides both methods, what method > do we recommend to end users? Also should system management tool > support two configuration mechanisms for the same functionality? It gets worse. If the distro sets up things via cgroups and the admin tries to use dmsetup - how does the configuration propagate between the two mechanisms? The sysadmin would expect that any changes made via dmsetup will become visible via the config tools (that use cgroups), too. This will quickly increase the code requirements to ridiculous proportions - or leave sysadmins confused and annoyed. Neither is a good option, IMHO. -- All rights reversed. -- 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