[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170719174842.GR3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:48:42 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, lizefan@...wei.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, mingo@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
luto@...capital.net, efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
guro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support
Hello, Waiman.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 01:09:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For me, that is the only good reason why we should keep the current
> behavior. So I am fine with that.
>
> + cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp->dom_cgrp;
>
> However, I am still puzzled by above line of code, should it be just
>
> cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp;
Oh I see. Yeah, that's just a silly (harmless) bug. The field gets
properly initialized in init_cgroup_housekeeping(). I'll remove that
line.
Thanks!
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists