[GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, guys.

cgroup/for-3.5 currently contains the following changes which
blk-cgroup needs to proceed with the on-going cleanup.

* Dynamic addition and removal of cftypes to make config/stat file
  handling modular for policies.

* cgroup removal update to not wait for css references to drain to fix
  blkcg removal hang caused by cfq caching cfqgs.

Due to the extensive changes in blk-cgroup.c, the pull results in some
non-trivial conflicts which can be a bit tricky to resolve correctly.

The following branch contains the merged commit.  Please feel free to
pull in as-is or use it as reference.  Stephen, cgroup and block next
branches will cause nasty conflicts until this merge happens, please
use this commit as merge reference or skip cgroup/for-3.5 for the time
being.

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git block-core-cgroup-merge

Thank you.

-- 
tejun

Re: [GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:03:06 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> cgroup/for-3.5 currently contains the following changes which
> blk-cgroup needs to proceed with the on-going cleanup.
> 
> * Dynamic addition and removal of cftypes to make config/stat file
>   handling modular for policies.
> 
> * cgroup removal update to not wait for css references to drain to fix
>   blkcg removal hang caused by cfq caching cfqgs.
> 
> Due to the extensive changes in blk-cgroup.c, the pull results in some
> non-trivial conflicts which can be a bit tricky to resolve correctly.
> 
> The following branch contains the merged commit.  Please feel free to
> pull in as-is or use it as reference.  Stephen, cgroup and block next
> branches will cause nasty conflicts until this merge happens, please
> use this commit as merge reference or skip cgroup/for-3.5 for the time
> being.

OK, I have moved the cgroup tree to before the block tree (just so we see
failures in that tree independently of failures in the block tree).
Currently the block tree contains nothing, so we have no conflicts
today.  The best way to proceed is for the parts of the cgroup tree that
the block tree will depend on (which may be the entire current cgroup
tree) should be in a separate, stable (i.e. non rebasing/rewriting)
branch that can be merged into both the cgroup and block trees.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Stephen.

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:59:05AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> today.  The best way to proceed is for the parts of the cgroup tree that
> the block tree will depend on (which may be the entire current cgroup
> tree) should be in a separate, stable (i.e. non rebasing/rewriting)
> branch that can be merged into both the cgroup and block trees.

Yeap, that's the intention of this pull request.  cgroup/for-3.5 is
already stable.  We just need it to be pulled into block/for-3.5/core.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[Jens Axboe]

On 2012-04-02 11:55, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Stephen.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:59:05AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> today.  The best way to proceed is for the parts of the cgroup tree that
>> the block tree will depend on (which may be the entire current cgroup
>> tree) should be in a separate, stable (i.e. non rebasing/rewriting)
>> branch that can be merged into both the cgroup and block trees.
> 
> Yeap, that's the intention of this pull request.  cgroup/for-3.5 is
> already stable.  We just need it to be pulled into block/for-3.5/core.

It's pulled in.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [GIT PULL] block/for-3.5/core: pull in cgroup/for-3.5

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:24:39PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-04-02 11:55, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Stephen.
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 11:59:05AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> today.  The best way to proceed is for the parts of the cgroup tree that
> >> the block tree will depend on (which may be the entire current cgroup
> >> tree) should be in a separate, stable (i.e. non rebasing/rewriting)
> >> branch that can be merged into both the cgroup and block trees.
> > 
> > Yeap, that's the intention of this pull request.  cgroup/for-3.5 is
> > already stable.  We just need it to be pulled into block/for-3.5/core.
> 
> It's pulled in.

Great, now we can merge the conf/file restructuring patchset.  Will
write in that thread.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun