Hey, James. On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 10:27:18AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > Well, you know, since bdis are block device tied, there's a natural > question if this can be a similar (or identical) control plane to the > one Oren is proposing for the device namespace. I know you've never > really liked the idea, but this is pushing us down that path. The reason I'm reluctant about Oren's proposal is not about where or how it'll be implemented but about whether it's something we want to have at all. The proposed use case seemed exceedingly niche and transient to me, which is not to say that the use case shouldn't be supported but more that it probably should be implemented in a way which is a lot less intrusive even if that means taking compromises elsewhere (for example, userland basesystem might not experience full transparency). > Perhaps what we should do is a half day on cgroups before the main LSF > (so in collab summit time, or just in the pub the night before) ... I'm > not sure all our audience are cgroup aware ... I think a single slot should suffice. Talking longer doesn't necessarily seem to lead to something actually useful. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
