Matt Helsley wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 11:47 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: >> The reason i made it a bool is we merged ckrm_iface to rcfs, and >> ckrm_iface was using put_task_struct, which is not an exported symbol. >> >> May be we can add a new function to core, that takes a pid, instead of a >> task data struture, to set the class that does the get/put_task_struct. >> >> Comments anybody ? > > I would rather see the options merged than add a function that takes a > pid. I don't think merging RCFS with the CKRM option adds much (if any) > overhead in the case that CKRM is unused, and keeping the interface as a > separate option doesn't seem necessary. Also, RCFS will only appear when > configfs gets mounted anyway.
That makes sense. But a flaw of this approach is it also forces configfs statically linked to a vmlinux. Do you think it is acceptable? Thanks, MAEDA Naoaki ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
