Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7

[Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:17 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On Friday 08 Oct 2010 16:42:06 John Stoffel wrote:

> Priority is also not that great concept. I may have proposed classes or
> something similar at some point, don't remember any more. It would be
> equivalent to having allocated priority ranges, like:
> 
> >1000 - pre-content
> >=100 - access-control
> <100 - content
> 
> Doesn't really solve ordering inside groups so maybe we do not need priorities
> at all just these three classes?

I originally thought of trying to enumerate the types of users and came
up with the same 3 you did.  Then I thought it better to give a general
priority field which we could indicate in documentation something like
those 3 classes (exactly like you did above).  I don't want to hard code
some limited number of types of users into the interface. (ok it's going
to limited, I was thinking 8 bits, but maybe others think we need more?)

As an extreme example going with 3 fixed type of users (and thus
equivalently only 3 priorities) would not allow for hierarchies of
hierarchical storage managers.  What if priority MAX only brought in
enough info for priority MAX-1 to bring in the real file?  If they had
to share the single 'pre-content' priority we have another ordering
problem.

-Eric