On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 thought I responded to them at http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx/msg08512.html > I didn't see any reply to the points I raised specifically. > 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. > 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 > If I remember correctly, Dhaval has pushed version 0.31 into Fedora and we will soon push in version 0.32 > "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. Your approach is fine, but it is a very hands off approach, I was hoping that you would be more proactive and fix things or help us fix them (Daniel P Berrange has been very helpful). I don't blame you, since everyone has limited bandwidth. Balbir -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list