Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[Dave McCracken]

On Monday 30 October 2006 11:09 am, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hierarchy has implications in not just the kernel-user API, but also on
> the controller design. I would prefer to progressively enhance the
> controller, not supporting hierarchy in the begining.
> 
> However you do have a valid concern that, if we dont design the user-kernel
> API keeping hierarchy in mind, then we may break this interface when we
> latter add hierarchy support, which will be bad.
>
> One possibility is to design the user-kernel interface that supports
> hierarchy but not support creating hierarchical depths more than 1 in the
> initial versions. Would that work?

Is there any user demand for heirarchy right now?  I agree that we should 
design the API to allow heirarchy, but unless there is a current need for it 
I think we should not support actually creating heirarchies.  In addition to 
the reduction in code complexity, it will simplify the paradigm presented to 
the users.  I'm a firm believer in not giving users options they will never 
use.

Dave McCracken
-
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/