This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Domgrps/SchedGrps Merge RFC: domgrps-vmm

To: "Mike D. Day" <ncmike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Domgrps/SchedGrps Merge RFC: domgrps-vmm
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:05:11 +0000
Cc: Chris <hap10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:05:48 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080211220738.GA11545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike D. Day" <ncmike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris <hap10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1CB9F0D9-ADBD-4368-836C-94CAB62296B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080211220738.GA11545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Mike D. Day, le Mon 11 Feb 2008 17:07:38 -0500, a écrit :
> So a domain can only belong to one group at a time. Would it ever be
> useful for a domain to belong to more than one group? This type of
> restriction seems to work against the idea of a general grouping
> concept.


> For example, all domains that belong to a scheduling group
> (assuming we eventually merge domgrp and schedgrp) would automatically
> be removed from a scheduling group if added to any other type of
> group.

Which makes sense, doesn't it?

> This argues for keeping different types of groups under different
> grouping infrastructures unless we can figure out a way for a domain
> to have multiple group memberships. It may be too complicated to do so.

Yes, usually group mecanisms are just hierarchical rather than being so
generic as to permit several membership.  I guess the common pitfall is
when enumerating groups, you may see a domain several times, and such
strange effects.


Xen-devel mailing list