Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> 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.
I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
Don't we?
Guarantee may be one of
1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
4. anything else
Let's decide what kind of a guarantee we want.
>> 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
>>>
-
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]
