From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:11:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20111214181131.GG10791@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <20111214175101.daac0549e5ed9d766c3a9bb5@canb.auug.org.au> <20111214161628.GC10791@somewhere.redhat.com> <20111214100851.2ead3872.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:59658 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755460Ab1LNSLk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:11:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111214100851.2ead3872.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:08:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:31 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > > cgroups: new cancel_attach_task() subsystem callback > > > cgroups: ability to stop res charge propagation on bounded ancestor > > > cgroups: add res counter common ancestor searching > > > res_counter: allow charge failure pointer to be null > > > cgroups: pull up res counter charge failure interpretation to caller > > > cgroups: allow subsystems to cancel a fork > > > cgroups: add a task counter subsystem > > > cgroups: ERR_PTR needs err.h > > > cgroup: Fix task counter common ancestor logic > > > cgroup-fix-task-counter-common-ancestor-logic-checkpatch-fixes > > > > > > I am wondering if that patch set should be included in the cgroup tree? > > > > That would be probably the easier solution. > > Andrew, do you mind if I rebase these patches and target them to Tejun's > > tree instead? > > Sure, that works, I'll drop them. Cool. > > We can keep them on a standalone branch there based on Tejuns until > > we reach an agreement on their upstreamability. > > I wondered what had been happening with that discussion. I guess we > need to restart it. > Dan J Walsh and Daniel Berrange who work on lxc and for whom I'm primarily working on this feature have added their point of view. You might want to have a look. I can post something that synthetize everybody's words.