[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100510210724.GP31830@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:07:24 -0700
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 015/100] cgroup freezer: Update stale locking
comments
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:01:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 06 May 2010, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >
> > On 05/06/2010 03:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Saturday 01 May 2010, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > >> From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
> > >>
> > >> Update stale comments regarding locking order and add a little more detail
> > >> so it's easier to follow the locking between the cgroup freezer and the
> > >> power management freezer code.
> > >
> > > I guess these three patches are for me.
> > >
> > > Do you want me to handle them?
> >
> > Yes, please, that would be great.
>
> However, patches 16 and 17 seem to depend on checkpoint/restart and don't
> appear to be margeable at this point. Is this correct?
Strictly speaking they do not depend on checkpoint/restart. However, only
checkpoint/restart uses the functionality introduced by those patches so I
think you are correct that they aren't mergeable at this point.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists