[libvirt] Re: [Libcg-devel] [discuss] The new cgroup patches for libvirt

Dhaval Giani dhaval at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Oct 3 17:14:50 UTC 2008

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 06:22:27PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:31:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > I understand that in the past there has been a perception that libcgroups might
> > not yet be ready, because we did not have ABI stability built into the library
> > and the header file had old comments about things changing. I would urge the
> > group to look at the current implementation of libcgroups (look at v0.32) and
> > help us
> > 
> > 1. Fix any issues you see or point them to us
>   I did point the general problem of ABI in libcgroup
>     http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@redhat.com/msg08388.html
> I didn't see any reply to the points I raised specifically.

I did respond back to that email at

Since then patches have been merged which clean up that part of the

> In the meantime we got a relatively simple, sufficient for now, usable
> right now, patch fullfilling our needs.
> A working patch is better in my eye than something which may work well
> in the future if we take the time to integrate it and stabilize and
> propagate to the systems we use.
> The package available in Fedora 9 has not improved as far as I can tell.

Rawhide has a newer package, and I am working on packaging up v0.32 for
rawhide now. Should be pushed out sometime soon.

> So I'm still keeping the same point of view as posted on that same
> thread a month ago:
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@redhat.com/msg08472.html
> "Yes I don't want to presume the ability of the libcgroup to become
> cleaner and more stable, we can probably go with a small internal API
> and when/if things become nicer, then reuse libcgroup,"
>  As maintainer I will also note that "nicer" also imply the ability
> to work well and smoothly with the other maintainers. I hate guerilla,
> I would prefer if you had read and replied to what I wrote.
>   So Dan Smith patch should IMHO go in now, if later your API are widely
> distributed, cleaner than what i have now (0.1c may be old but what is
> available to us on Fedora, no idea what is available on other distros)
> and there is a clean patch to switch then we will look at it, right now
> we can't use libcgroup in my opinion.

If you would not mind, could you take a look at the latest snapshot
available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/libcg , and let us know
what is missing, we can implement it so that libvirt's needs are met.


More information about the libvir-list mailing list