On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 13:36 -0500, tj@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > 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). Don't disagree. My thought was go from the use cases ... i.e. the control planes we would need for device namespaces and per-bdi cgroups and see if anything consistent emerges. If it does, we still don't have to implement it, but we know how to if the need arises. > > 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. Probably OK ... it would have to be a plenary, though, since this covers fs and io and most of the cgroup interested people are in mm. James -- 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
