Paul Menage wrote:
The framework should be flexible enough to let controllers register any control parameters (via the filesystem?) that they need, but it shouldn't contain explicit concepts like guarantees and limits.
If the framework was able to handle arbitrary control parameters, that would certainly be interesting.
Presumably there would be some way for the controllers to be called from the framework to validate those parameters?
Chris - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: "Paul Menage" <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- References:
- [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: "Paul Menage" <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- From: "Paul Menage" <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- Prev by Date: [PATCH ] ahci: Add the support of nvidia AHCI controllers of MCP67 to ahci.c
- Next by Date: [PATCH 1/2] IDE: Add the support of nvidia PATA controllers of MCP67 to amd74xx.c & pata_amd.c
- Previous by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- Next by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
- Index(es):
 |