[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALdu-PDAgqeRJt5vqTB9wddwz70Yn+Jf-Pb0dDKDBD_q37tHQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:14:12 -0700
From: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cgroup: introduce cgroup_taskset and use it in
subsys->can_attach(), cancel_attach() and attach()
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Currently, there's no way to pass multiple tasks to cgroup_subsys
> methods necessitating the need for separate per-process and per-task
> methods. This patch introduces cgroup_taskset which can be used to
> pass multiple tasks and their associated cgroups to cgroup_subsys
> methods.
>
> Three methods - can_attach(), cancel_attach() and attach() - are
> converted to use cgroup_taskset. This unifies passed parameters so
> that all methods have access to all information. Conversions in this
> patchset are identical and don't introduce any behavior change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
The general idea of passing consistent information to all *attach
methods seems good, but isn't it simpler to just fix up the various
method signatures?
The whole point of having *attach() and *attach_task() was to minimize
the amount of boilerplate (in this case, iterating across a new
cgroup_taskset abstraction) in the subsystems, leaving that to the
cgroups framework.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists