Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking

Andrew Morton
2013-01-26T00:03:28Z

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:37:01 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> 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).