[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120913172137.GZ7677@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:21:37 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with
broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them
Hello, Glauber.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 04:01:40PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> This is getting confusing for me as well, because I don't know if your
> reply was targeted towards me or Michal. As for me, I am in agreement
> with what you did, and I merely replied to Michal's concern and
> suggestion of not warning in the special 1-st level only setups saying I
> side with you.
Oh, I was replying to Michal. I thought there was behavior difference
with the .use_hierarchy=0 cases that Michal was talking about but I
don't think that's the case and Michal is trying to say that we
shouldn't warn if the configuration behaves identical to
root.use_hierarchy=1 even if it contains some .use_hierarchy=0's,
which I'm fine with.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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