linux-kernel - Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6599ad830804031017m60dc5ca5sebaa434e5bde8633@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:17:44 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
	"Sudhir Kumar" <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v6)

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  > Even better, maybe just pass in the relevant cgroup_subsys_state
>  > objects here, rather than the cgroup objects?
>  >
>
>  Is that better than passing the cgroups? All the callbacks I see usually pass
>  either task_struct or cgroup. Won't it be better, consistent use of API to pass
>  either of those?

I have a long term plan to try to divorce the subsystems from having
to worry too much about actual control groups where possible.

But I guess that for consistency with the current API, passing in the
cgroup is OK.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/