From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] cgroups: allow a cgroup subsystem to reject a fork Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:45:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20150417144519.GC1954@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1428799917-15141-1-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <1428799917-15141-4-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <20150413142439.GA2596@htj.duckdns.org> <20150414121732.GL2596@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=Xr+1DOxSVJI22EXyd8Son+vVW05gclsQQh98ztyKo90=; b=fejDSLKwaMXDyFeLScdrqc19CmCvDZK1Q0n4NkqwF7agnw+IYx1RSlAt099RrIk8YK 8Kg7tiQIyST/U9UdV53FOsLJCmWtfyarNNhGds/UU7wYz8Gdp4bd8pfl8t2sOk+XoZ9O wQ5r/n2D0mgNB88dePp7rSkLNWiYTdYBvT7ZJCxwnYBUF7EPo4p71hDog7L1H+T34+zk WD46Q8lC10wJEiarGYfOq5/lq+Obf30T4/09cVcf8m/EfNhxX5t/j9z1Alp/mss4okob 7EhQdDePUhO3Oqb0PV2yFo6h4nVtxA2DqTEWO3d2vqEGLqEw6HbTm78X2/7SiSUyL5dp Mu6g== 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: Aleksa Sarai Cc: lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, richard-/L3Ra7n9ekc@public.gmane.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:57:29PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > Do you also want me to completely drop the COUNT macro? IMO it makes > the CGROUP__COUNT consolidation much nicer. What's wrong with simply having start and end tags? -- tejun