lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface)
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:39:43PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>
>
>>+/*
>>+ * The setbeanlimit syscall
>>+ */
>>+asmlinkage long sys_setublimit(uid_t uid, unsigned long resource,
>>+ unsigned long *limits)
>>+{
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&ub->ub_lock, flags);
>>+ ub->ub_parms[resource].barrier = new_limits[0];
>>+ ub->ub_parms[resource].limit = new_limits[1];
>
>
> Would it be usefull to notify the "resource" controller about this
> change in limits? For ex: in case of the CPU controller I wrote
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/4/9), I was finding it usefull to recv
> notification of changes to these limits, so that internal structures
> (which are kept per-task-group) can be updated.
I think this can be added when needed, no?
See no much reason to add notifications which are not used yet.

Please, keep in mind. This patch set can be extended in infinite number
of ways. But!!! It contains only the required minimal functionality.
When we are to add code requiring to know about limit changes or fails
or whatever we can always extend it accordingly.

Thanks,
Kirill
-
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: 2006-08-17 16:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans