From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754528AbWKHLXU (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:23:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754532AbWKHLXU (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:23:20 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:61827 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754528AbWKHLXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:23:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 03:22:53 -0800 From: Paul Jackson To: "Paul Menage" Cc: dev@openvz.org, vatsa@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices Message-Id: <20061108032253.e4f4b0b5.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830611072015g48a7013r3e3aed1bf22e905d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061030031531.8c671815.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830610310846m5d718d22p5e1b569d4ef4e63@mail.gmail.com> <20061101172540.GA8904@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830611011537i2de812fck99822d3dd1314992@mail.gmail.com> <20061106124948.GA3027@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830611061223m77c0ef1ei72bd7729d9284ec6@mail.gmail.com> <20061107104118.f02a1114.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830611071107u4226ec17h5facc7ee2ad53174@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830611071421s7792bbb1qd9c7b1fc840dfa50@mail.gmail.com> <20061107191518.c094ce1a.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830611072015g48a7013r3e3aed1bf22e905d@mail.gmail.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul M wrote: > except for the fact that I > was trying to fit the controller/container bindings into the same > mount/umount interface. Of course, if you come up with an API using mount for this stuff that looks nice and intuitive, don't hesitate to propose it. I don't have any fundamental opposition to just using mount options here; just a pretty strong guess that it won't be very intuitive by the time all the necessary operations are encoded. And this sort of abstractified pseudo meta containerized code is just the sort of thing that drives normal humans up a wall, or should I say, into a fog of confusion. Not only is it worth a bit of work getting the abstractions right, as you have noted, it's also worth a bit of work to try to get the API as transparent as we are able. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401