linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rework mem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:46:25 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 06:44:57AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why we can't do the other way around
> then, and use a for_each_*() for sched walks? Without even consider what
> I personally prefer, what I really don't like is to have two different
> cgroup walkers when it seems like we could very well have just one.

Ooh, sure thing, let's do that.  Will work on that.

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/