From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] add nproc cgroup subsystem Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: <20150228225036.GA4597@htj.duckdns.org> References: <20150227114940.GB3964@htj.duckdns.org> <54F09E62.8000007@gmail.com> <20150227170640.GK3964@htj.duckdns.org> <20150227174503.GM3964@htj.duckdns.org> <20150227214904.GQ3964@htj.duckdns.org> <20150228165706.GS3964@htj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=J/TEm8J4R1MAJrlKzd0ucb4HJGRk9ZtPdnureVroJUA=; b=IamFTwC+pSnhglbf1oKpLd13wHqk+CkDI0A5V7URmswRAGLrdI1D5NZVjvejkZejb1 BRKry2Vo7UQ5IkxD06oDgpav2Y7Y2TZdcPs4KdxSNfJaTxA3VqztwtyXSCPogcsdqsAj BkGDVw3S9RnyAVEDomtmoraxGVLe4ZQM+WTyMx7SFbLLIaNvQeGc/76fQRWY+xG+IVLR xeMXy247qm1soU6YRuwtLdz0MzTgzF2A49mIpblPyVmCuWKqiAbz4RI5+hgIuqysoSuL rYwnELvIe7ypyQNIJ/wEJiH+e157n0J702fdX6cgaLrRVQKPb+c1McHvwJ1dxWnaOEsl C0ng== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tim Hockin Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Austin S Hemmelgarn , Li Zefan , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Cgroups , Aleksa Sarai , richard , mingo On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 02:26:58PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote: > Wow, so much anger. I'm not even sure how to respond, so I'll just > say this and sign off. All I want is a better, friendlier, more > useful system overall. We clearly have different ways of looking at > the problem. Can you communicate anything w/o passive aggression? If you have a technical point, just state that. Can you at least agree that we shouldn't be making design decisions based on 16bit pid_t? -- tejun