[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100928135117.4fdd5799.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:51:17 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:58 +0200
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.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?
--
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