On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:01:47 +0100 Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My immediate observation is that you're not really tracking the "owner" > > here - you're tracking an opaque 16-bit token known only to the block > > controller in a field which - if changed by anybody other than the block > > controller - will lead to mayhem in the block controller. I think it > > might be clearer - and safer - to say "blkcg" or some such instead of > > "owner" here. > > Basically the idea here was to be as generic as possible and make this > feature potentially available also to other subsystems, so that cgroup > subsystems may represent whatever they want with the 16-bit token. > However, no more than a single subsystem may be able to use this feature > at the same time. That makes me nervous; it can't really be used that way unless we want to say that certain controllers are fundamentally incompatible and can't be allowed to play together. For whatever my $0.02 are worth (given the state of the US dollar, that's not a whole lot), I'd suggest keeping the current mechanism, but make it clear that it belongs to your controller. If and when another controller comes along with a need for similar functionality, somebody can worry about making it more general. jon _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
