Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:44 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2010-09-28 13:51:17]:
> 
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:58 +0200
> > Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello Andrew,
> > > 
> > > It would be great, if you could accept the taskstats cleanup patches that
> > > are the prerequisite for the taskstats precise accounting patches. The
> > > patches do not add any new functionality. I think they make the code better
> > > readable and extensible:
> > > * 01/02: taskstats: Separate taskstats commands
> > > * 02/02: taskstats: Split fill_pid function
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > I've been sitting on a couple of taskstats patches for ages.  Mel's
> > delay-accounting-re-implement-c-for-getdelaysc-to-report-information-on-a-target-command.patch
> > and Jeff's delayacct-align-to-8-byte-boundary-on-64-bit-systems.patch.
> > 
> > I have notes against both of these indicating that Balbir had concerns
> > and as far as I know those concerns remain unresolved.  So I'll drop
> > those patches now - can you guys please reactivate them if you still
> > think we should be making these changes?
> > 
> 
> Hi, Andrew,
> 
> My concern with Jeff's patch was that it might break existing
> applications. He clarified it does not, I had requested for a version
> bump since the patches change some definitions
> 
> I had no concerns (IIRC) with Mel's patches. Mel wanted me to
> implement the "-c" option we had earlier.
> 

hm, OK, thanks, I requeued them for 2.6.37.