On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 06:22:27PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:31:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > I understand that in the past there has been a perception that libcgroups might > > not yet be ready, because we did not have ABI stability built into the library > > and the header file had old comments about things changing. I would urge the > > group to look at the current implementation of libcgroups (look at v0.32) and > > help us > > > > 1. Fix any issues you see or point them to us > > I did point the general problem of ABI in libcgroup > http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx/msg08388.html > > I didn't see any reply to the points I raised specifically. I did respond back to that email at http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx/msg08541.html Since then patches have been merged which clean up that part of the code. > In the meantime we got a relatively simple, sufficient for now, usable > right now, patch fullfilling our needs. > A working patch is better in my eye than something which may work well > in the future if we take the time to integrate it and stabilize and > propagate to the systems we use. > > The package available in Fedora 9 has not improved as far as I can tell. Rawhide has a newer package, and I am working on packaging up v0.32 for rawhide now. Should be pushed out sometime soon. > So I'm still keeping the same point of view as posted on that same > thread a month ago: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx/msg08472.html > > "Yes I don't want to presume the ability of the libcgroup to become > cleaner and more stable, we can probably go with a small internal API > and when/if things become nicer, then reuse libcgroup," > > As maintainer I will also note that "nicer" also imply the ability > to work well and smoothly with the other maintainers. I hate guerilla, > I would prefer if you had read and replied to what I wrote. > > So Dan Smith patch should IMHO go in now, if later your API are widely > distributed, cleaner than what i have now (0.1c may be old but what is > available to us on Fedora, no idea what is available on other distros) > and there is a clean patch to switch then we will look at it, right now > we can't use libcgroup in my opinion. > If you would not mind, could you take a look at the latest snapshot available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/libcg , and let us know what is missing, we can implement it so that libvirt's needs are met. Thanks, -- regards, Dhaval -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list