On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:19:06 -0400 "Michael Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All this would end up needing runtime configurability and tweakability and > > customisability. All standard fare for userspace stuff - much easier than > > patching the kernel. > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the problem is resource > allocation when switching from state A to state B, and from B to C, > etc.; wouldn't it be a bad thing if state B happened to be (in the > future) this state-shifting userspace daemon of which you speak? (Or > is that likely to be impossible/unlikely for some other reason which > alludes me at the moment?) Well. I was assuming that the daemon wouldn't be a great memory pig. I suspect it would do practically zero IO and would use little memory. It could even be mlocked, but I doubt if that would be needed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
