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

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 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

"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.