On Mon, Apr 27 2009 at 6:30am -0400, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > Why is it that you repeatedly ignore concern/discussion about your > > determination to continue using a custom grouping mechanism? It is this > > type of excess layering that serves no purpose other than to facilitate > > out-of-tree use-cases. dm-ioband would take a big step closer to being > > merged upstream if you took others' feedback and showed more willingness > > to work through the outstanding issues. > > I think dm-ioband's approach is one simple way to handle cgroup > because the current cgroup has no way to manage kernel module's > resources. Please tell me if you have any good ideas to handle > cgroup by dm-ioband. If you'd like to keep dm-ioband modular then I'd say the appropriate cgroup interfaces need to be exposed for module use (symbols exported, etc). No other controller has had a need to be modular but if you think it is requirement for dm-ioband (facilitate updates, etc) then I have to believe it is doable. Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
