From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:03:28 -0800 Message-ID: <20130125160328.7a73849f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1358862461-18046-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <510258D0.6060407@parallels.com> <20130125101854.GC8876@dhcp22.suse.cz> <51025E2B.4080105@parallels.com> <20130125173701.GH3081@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130125173701.GH3081-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: Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand , Michal Hocko , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:37:01 -0800 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:27:55PM +0400, Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand wrote: > > > I would vote to -mm. Or is there any specific reason to have it in > > > cgroup tree? It doesn't touch any cgroup core parts, does it? > > > > > Copying Andrew (retroactively sorry you weren't directly CCd on this one > > as well). > > > > I depend on css_online and the cgroup generic iterator. If they are > > already present @ -mm, then fine. > > (looking now, they seem to be...) > > Yeah, they're all in cgroup/for-next so should be available in -mm, so > I think -mm probably is the better tree to route these. > yep, grabbed, thanks. The good changelogging and code commenting really help with review - thanks for doing that. It's a shame so few people are interested in reviewing them! (Hint).