On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:01:47 +0100
Andrea Righi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

My immediate observation is that you're not really tracking the "owner"
here - you're tracking an opaque 16-bit token known only to the block
controller in a field which - if changed by anybody other than the block
controller - will lead to mayhem in the block controller.  I think it
might be clearer - and safer - to say "blkcg" or some such instead of
"owner" here.

Basically the idea here was to be as generic as possible and make this
feature potentially available also to other subsystems, so that cgroup
subsystems may represent whatever they want with the 16-bit token.
However, no more than a single subsystem may be able to use this feature
at the same time.

That makes me nervous; it can't really be used that way unless we want to
say that certain controllers are fundamentally incompatible and can't be
allowed to play together.  For whatever my $0.02 are worth (given the
state of the US dollar, that's not a whole lot), I'd suggest keeping the
current mechanism, but make it clear that it belongs to your controller.
If and when another controller comes along with a need for similar
functionality, somebody can worry about making it more general.

jon

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>