If this daemon works as advertised, we will explore moving all write
traffic to use it. I still have concerns that this can't handle read
traffic at the scale we need.
Tejun, I am not sure why chown came back into the conversation. This
is a replacement for that.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM
our usecases have only wanted to know about the parent, but
> I can see people wanting to go further. Would it be much different to
> support both? I feel like it'll be simpler to support all if we go that
> route.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrot
lmctfy literally supports ".." as a container name :)
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com):
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> > Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com)
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com):
>> At the start of this discussion, some months ago, we offered to
>> co-devel this with Lennart et al. They did not seem keen on the idea.
>>
>> If they have an est
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com):
>> What are the requirements/goals around performance and concurrency?
>> Do you expect this to be a single-threaded thing, or can we handle
>> some number of concurrent opera
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Tim Hockin (thoc...@google.com):
>> Thanks for this! I think it helps a lot to discuss now, rather than
>> over nearly-done code.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
&
Thanks for this! I think it helps a lot to discuss now, rather than
over nearly-done code.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Additionally, Tejun has specified that we do not want users to be
> too closely tied to the cgroupfs implementation. Therefore
> commands will be
At the start of this discussion, some months ago, we offered to
co-devel this with Lennart et al. They did not seem keen on the idea.
If they have an established DBUS protocol spec, we should consider
adopting it instead of a new one, but we CAN'T just play follow the
leader and do whatever they
