[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35323eb7-8899-b5cf-fccd-a0da37cc1b36@mellanox.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 10:40:33 +0300
From: Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
<serge@...lyn.com>, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller
On 10/09/2016 19:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:25:13PM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>> a) delay cgroups support until the grand rewrite is done
>>> b) add it now and deal with the consequences later
>>>
>> Can we do (b) now and differ adding any HW resources to cgroup until
>> they are clearly called out.
>> Architecture and APIs are already in place to support this.
>
> Sounds fine to me. The only thing I want to avoid is pie in the
> sky "future proofing" that leads to horrible architectures. And I assume
> that's what Matan proposed.
>
NO, that not what I proposed. User-kernel API/ABI should be designed
with drivers differences in mind. The internal design or internals APIs
could ignore such things as they can be changed later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists