lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
Date
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-30 18:19    [W:0.081 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site