Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added usermemory)

[Chandra Seetharaman]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:

<snip>
> 
> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think this can

IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.

> be worked out as we make progress.
> 
> > I agree with these requirements and lets move into this direction.
> > But moving so far can't be done without accepting:
> > 1. core functionality
> > 2. accounting
> > 
> 
> Some of the core functionality might be a limiting factor for the requirements.
> Lets agree on the requirements, I think its a great step forward and then
> build the core functionality with these requirements in mind.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Kirill
> > 
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/