Hello, Glauber. On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:55:21PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > So, I think it's desirable for all controllers to be able to handle > > hierarchies the same way and to have the ability to tag something as > > belonging to certain group in the hierarchy for all controllers but I > > don't think it's desirable or feasible to require all of them to > > follow exactly the same grouping at all levels. > > By "different levels of granularity" do you mean having just a subset of > them turned on at a particular place? Heh, this is tricky to describe and I'm not really following what you mean. They're all on the same tree but a controller should be able to handle a given subtree as single group. e.g. if you draw the tree, different controllers should be able to draw different enclosing circles and operate on the simplifed tree. How flexible that should be, I don't know. Maybe it would be enough to be able to say "treat all children of this node as belonging to this node for controllers X and Y". > If yes, having them guaranteed to be comounted is still perceived by me > as a good first step. A natural following would be to turn them on/off > on a per-group basis. I don't agree with that. If we do it that way, we would lose differing granularity from forcing co-mounting and then restore it later when the subtree handling is implemented. If we can do away with differing granularity, that's fine; otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to remove and then restore it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>