![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 10/30/06, Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> 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. The current CPUsets code supports hierarchies, and I believe that there are people out there who depend on them (right, PaulJ?) Since CPUsets are at heart a form of resource controller, it would be nice to have them use the same resource control infrastructure as other resource controllers (see the generic container patches that I sent out as an example of this). So that would be at least one user that requires a hierarchy. Paul - 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 19:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||