On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
<snip>
>
> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think this can
IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.
> be worked out as we make progress.
>
> > I agree with these requirements and lets move into this direction.
> > But moving so far can't be done without accepting:
> > 1. core functionality
> > 2. accounting
> >
>
> Some of the core functionality might be a limiting factor for the requirements.
> Lets agree on the requirements, I think its a great step forward and then
> build the core functionality with these requirements in mind.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Kirill
> >
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [email protected] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
