Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:37:26PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> +struct user_beancounter
> +{
> +	atomic_t		ub_refcount;
> +	spinlock_t		ub_lock;
> +	uid_t			ub_uid;
> +	struct hlist_node	hash;
> +
> +	struct user_beancounter	*parent;

This seems to hint at some heirarchy of ubc? How would that heirarchy be
used? I cant find anything in the patch which forms this heirarchy
(basically I dont see any place where beancounter_findcreate() is called
with non-NULL 2nd arg).

[snip]

> +static void init_beancounter_syslimits(struct user_beancounter *ub)
> +{
> +	int k;
> +
> +	for (k = 0; k < UB_RESOURCES; k++)
> +		ub->ub_parms[k].barrier = ub->ub_parms[k].limit;

This sets barrier to 0. Is this value of 0 interpreted differently by
different controllers? One way to interpret it is "dont allocate any
resource", other way to interpret it is "don't care - give me what you
can" (which makes sense for stuff like CPU and network bandwidth).



-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/