On 11/1/06, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
The approach that I had in mind was that each controller could
register what ever control files it wanted, which would appear in the
filesystem directories for each container; reads and writes on those
files would invoke handlers in the controller. The framework wouldn't
care about the semantics of those control files. See the containers
patch that I posted last month for some examples of this.
Paul
-
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]
