From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754129Ab1AGI6u (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 03:58:50 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:60238 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753025Ab1AGI6t convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 03:58:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: consolidate the name of root_task_group and init_task_group From: Peter Zijlstra To: Yong Zhang Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20110107071736.GA32635@windriver.com> References: <1294375414-31028-1-git-send-email-yong.zhang0@gmail.com> <1294378950.8823.36.camel@marge.simson.net> <20110107071736.GA32635@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:59:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1294390754.2016.392.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 15:17 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > Well, I have no bias to either of them. Keeping init_task_group is > just that we can touch less lines. :) > > If you want root_task_group, here it is: > --- > From: Yong Zhang > Subject: [PATCH] sched: consolidate the name of root_task_group and > init_task_group > > root_task_group is the leftover of USER_SCHED, now it's always > same to init_task_group. > But as Mike suggested, root_task_group is maybe the suitable name > to keep for a tree. > So in this patch: > init_task_group --> root_task_group > init_task_group_load --> root_task_group_load > INIT_TASK_GROUP_LOAD --> ROOT_TASK_GROUP_LOAD > > Suggested-by: Mike Galbraith > Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang > Cc: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Peter Zijlstra OK, took this one instead..