[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120914191509.GN17747@google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:15:09 -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
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:19:06PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> I want oppose it as well, but I believe part of this exercise is to make
> the need to have hierarchy widespread. Warning on the case
> 1st-level-only case helps with that, even if we make more noise than we
> should.
>
> The reason I supported Tejun's proposal originally, is that I think that
> if we make the wrong amount of noise, being wrong by a surplus is better
> than being wrong by a deficit, in this case.
I think both are valid points and don't think it makes a lot of
difference either way. Michal being the maintainer of the code, I'm
taking his approach for this one.
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