From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753009Ab2ASHYD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:24:03 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:60589 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752548Ab2ASHYA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:24:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4F17C5A6.50501@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:26:30 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: LKML , Cgroups Subject: Re: [RFC] splitting cgroup.c References: <4F177C67.6070907@cn.fujitsu.com> <20120119022401.GH21533@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120119022401.GH21533@google.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-01-19 15:22:45, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-01-19 15:22:48, Serialize complete at 2012-01-19 15:22:48 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> So I think for the sake of readability and maintainability, we'd >> better split cgroup.c into smaller pieces: > > I agree that splitting is necessary but IMHO splitting usually tends > to go too far. Maybe we can split it into two and think about further > splitting later on? e.g. internal logic vs. userland interfacing. > This isn't feasible. The feasible way is to split by functionality, which I think was the way taken by perf developers.