From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/28] memcg: kmem controller charge/uncharge infrastructure Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:09:52 +0400 Message-ID: <4FC61C20.8090402@parallels.com> References: <1337951028-3427-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1337951028-3427-17-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120530123406.GC25094@somewhere.redhat.com> <4FC614CF.5000906@parallels.com> <20120530131059.GE25094@somewhere.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120530131059.GE25094-oHC15RC7JGTpAmv0O++HtFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Greg Thelen , Suleiman Souhlal , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Can we have at least a comment in the code that explain the reasons of taking the > owner rather than the task? It's not going to be very obvious to future reviewers. Yes.