From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx109.postini.com [74.125.245.109]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 174496B0087 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id xa7so620870pbc.14 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:46:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:46:25 -0800 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator Message-ID: <20121114184625.GE21185@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1352820639-13521-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <50A3C42F.9020901@parallels.com> <20121114184110.GD21185@mtj.dyndns.org> <50A45729.4000203@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50A45729.4000203@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Johannes Weiner , Ying Han , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner Hello, On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 06:44:57AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > Is there any particular reason why we can't do the other way around > then, and use a for_each_*() for sched walks? Without even consider what > I personally prefer, what I really don't like is to have two different > cgroup walkers when it seems like we could very well have just one. Ooh, sure thing, let's do that. Will work on that. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org