[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Re: [discuss] The new cgroup patches for libvirt



On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:31:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> I understand that in the past there has been a perception that libcgroups might
>> not yet be ready, because we did not have ABI stability built into the library
>> and the header file had old comments about things changing. I would urge the
>> group to look at the current implementation of libcgroups (look at v0.32) and
>> help us
>>
>> 1. Fix any issues you see or point them to us
>
>  I did point the general problem of ABI in libcgroup
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list redhat com/msg08388.html
>

I thought I responded to them at
http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list redhat com/msg08512.html

> I didn't see any reply to the points I raised specifically.
> In the meantime we got a relatively simple, sufficient for now, usable
> right now, patch fullfilling our needs.
> A working patch is better in my eye than something which may work well
> in the future if we take the time to integrate it and stabilize and
> propagate to the systems we use.
>
> The package available in Fedora 9 has not improved as far as I can tell.
> So I'm still keeping the same point of view as posted on that same
> thread a month ago:
>
>  http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list redhat com/msg08472.html
>

If I remember correctly, Dhaval has pushed version 0.31 into Fedora
and we will soon push in version 0.32

> "Yes I don't want to presume the ability of the libcgroup to become
> cleaner and more stable, we can probably go with a small internal API
> and when/if things become nicer, then reuse libcgroup,"
>
>  As maintainer I will also note that "nicer" also imply the ability
> to work well and smoothly with the other maintainers. I hate guerilla,
> I would prefer if you had read and replied to what I wrote.
>
>  So Dan Smith patch should IMHO go in now, if later your API are widely
> distributed, cleaner than what i have now (0.1c may be old but what is
> available to us on Fedora, no idea what is available on other distros)
> and there is a clean patch to switch then we will look at it, right now
> we can't use libcgroup in my opinion.

Your approach is fine, but it is a very hands off approach, I was
hoping that you would be more proactive and fix things or help us fix
them (Daniel P Berrange has been very helpful). I don't blame you,
since everyone has limited bandwidth.

Balbir


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]