From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757438Ab0JHQml (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:42:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54083 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108Ab0JHQmk (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:42:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7 From: Eric Paris To: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: John Stoffel , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "agruen@suse.de" In-Reply-To: <201010081717.25940.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> References: <1286486674.2571.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <19631.15310.568446.991954@quad.stoffel.home> <201010081717.25940.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:41:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1286556106.2682.66.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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