Re: New PAGG patch for 2.6.10, new functionality

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