[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: A common layer for Accounting packages
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Kaigai Kohei <> wrote:
>>In my understanding, what Andrew Morton said is "If target functionality can
>> implement in user space only, then we should not modify the kernel-tree".
> fork, exec and exit upcalls sound pretty good to me. As long as
> a) they use the same common machinery and
> b) they are next-to-zero cost if something is listening on the netlink
> socket but no accounting daemon is running.
> Question is: is this sufficient for CSA?

Yes, fork, exec, and exit upcalls are sufficient for CSA.

The framework i proposed earlier should satisfy your requirement a
and b, and provides upcalls needed by BSD, ELSA and CSA. Maybe i
misunderstood your concern of the 'very light weight' framework
i proposed besides being "overkill"?

- jay

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.079 / U:11.820 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site