Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7 | From | Eric Paris <> | Date | Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:41:46 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:17 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On Friday 08 Oct 2010 16:42:06 John Stoffel wrote:
> Priority is also not that great concept. I may have proposed classes or > something similar at some point, don't remember any more. It would be > equivalent to having allocated priority ranges, like: > > >1000 - pre-content > >=100 - access-control > <100 - content > > Doesn't really solve ordering inside groups so maybe we do not need priorities > at all just these three classes?
I originally thought of trying to enumerate the types of users and came up with the same 3 you did. Then I thought it better to give a general priority field which we could indicate in documentation something like those 3 classes (exactly like you did above). I don't want to hard code some limited number of types of users into the interface. (ok it's going to limited, I was thinking 8 bits, but maybe others think we need more?)
As an extreme example going with 3 fixed type of users (and thus equivalently only 3 priorities) would not allow for hierarchies of hierarchical storage managers. What if priority MAX only brought in enough info for priority MAX-1 to bring in the real file? If they had to share the single 'pre-content' priority we have another ordering problem.
-Eric
| |