From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cgroup: initialize cgrp->dentry before css_alloc() Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:35:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20130122163526.6c4ea765.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <50F7B040.2020906@huawei.com> <20130123002754.GB5359@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130123002754.GB5359-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tejun Heo Cc: Li Zefan , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Cgroups On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:27:54 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > (cc'ing Andrew as scheduler folks are difficult to get response from > these days and I can't think of anyone else to bother :) > > Hello, Li. > > The cgroup part looks good to me but it would be great if the > descriptions are more detailed, especially, about why the change is > beneficial or what it's aiming at. I take it that the shed changes > are necessary to facilitate the later cgroup changes? Can you please > elaborate how? > > The scheduler part of changes are mostly mechanical, so it would be > great if we can get ack from scheduler people and route these together. > The sched parts do look pretty innocuous and could be viewed as "cgroup stuff which happens to reside in kernel/sched/". If you like the code, I think the best you can do is to merge it up, make sure the sched guys are fully cc'ed then send it in to Linus.