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

Tejun Heo
2013-01-25T17:37:01Z

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.

Thanks!

--
tejun