On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:23:57PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you > missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not > include support for system oom handling. Nothing that I wrote above was > possible with the first patchset. This is the complete support. But we were talking about system oom handling. Yes, the patch didn't exist back then but the fundamental premises stay unchanged. There's no point in restarting the whole thread. You can refer to this patchset from that thread. It's a logical thing to do. We have all the context there. I don't really understand why you're resisting it. It doesn't change the basis of the discussion. The issues brought up before should still be addressed and it only makes sense to retain the context. If you have more to add, including the existence of this implementation, let's please talk in the original thread. It was long thread with a lot of points raised. Let's please not replay that whole thread here unnecessarily. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
