On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 15:54 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 14.07.15 at 16:08, wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion! I made a draft patch for this idea, It may have > > some issues since It is just a draft version, kind of like prototype, I post > > it here just like to know whether it is meet your expectation, if it is I > > can continue with this direction and this may speed up the upstreaming > > process. Thanks a lot! > > FWIW this looks okay to me as a draft (i.e. minus mechanical issues). > If it meets your requirements, I think this would nicely eliminate all the > objections against the earlier model. But let's see what Dario and > George think... > I'll reply to the Feng's email in more detail (even considering that it's a draft), but yes, indeed, this looks *a lot* nicer, a way better way of interacting with the scheduler! The approach is exactly the one I had in mind and was asking Feng to investigate, and I like the result much better than the old runstate-based hack-ish model. :-) Regards, Dario -- <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)