On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:02:24 -0400 Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:34:22PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have > > >> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be > > >> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads > > >> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a > > >> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in > > >> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making > > >> these additions unconditional. > > > > > > That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put > > > static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition. > > > > Either sounds fine to me. I suspect others have a stronger opinion. > > > > Paul > > > > Any other votes? One set of static inline functions (I'd call them > threadgroup_fork_{read,write}_{un,}lock) or just remove the ifdefs > entirely? I'm inclined to go with the former. > I vote for the former. #ifdef can be easily removed if someone finds it useful for other purpose...and static inline function is usual way. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers