On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:50:30PM -0600, Erik Jacobson wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I just uploaded a new PAGG patch for 2.6.10. It includes a request to
> slightly change how the attach function pointer of the PAGG hook is
> managed.
>
> Note that we may be posting another PAGG patch soon with some other
> changes.
>
> We now make it so the PAGG user can decide if a new process will actually
> be grouped or not by looking at the attach function pointer return
> value.
>
> The attach function, pointed to by the PAGG hook and run by pagg_attach,
> can have these return values:
>
> <0 Error which is propagated back to copy_process so
> the fork fails.
>
> =0 success, attach to same container as parent
>
> >0 success, but don't attach to a container
>
> It's also important to note that, as of now, if a negative value is
> returned by the attach function pointer, the value will be passed up
> through copy_process as a fork failure.
Eric,
One thought has come to mind. Was there a reason why similar
semantics weren't applied to pagg_init? I would have thought it would
make things consistent with pagg_attach. With error returns like:
<0 Error which is propagated back to copy_process so
the registration function fails completely.
=0 success, attach to same container as parent
>0 success, but don't attach to a container
That way processes can be ignored by pagg_init just as they can be by
pagg_attach.
Thanks,
--
Kingsley
|