Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

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

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:43:20AM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Consensus:
> > 	...
> > 	- Dont support heirarchy for now
> 
> Looks like this item can be dropped from the concensus ... ;).
> 
> I for one would recommend getting the hierarchy right from the
> beginning.
> 
> Though I can appreciate that others were trying to "keep it simple"
> and postpone dealing with such complications.  I don't agree.
> 
> Such stuff as this deeply affects all that sits on it.  Get the
> basic data shape presented by the kernel-user API right up front.
> The rest will follow, much easier.

Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on
the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the
controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining.

However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel 
API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we 
latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad. 

One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports hierarchy
but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the initial 
versions. Would that work?

-- 
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/