Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hello, KAMEZAWA. > > Thanks a lot for doing this. > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:17:18PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> In recent discussion, Tejun Heo, cgroup maintainer, has a plan to remove >> ->pre_destroy(). And now, in cgroup tree, pre_destroy() failure cause WARNING. > > Just to clarify, I'm not intending to ->pre_destroy() per-se but the > retry behavior of it, so ->pre_destroy() will be converted to return > void and called once on rmdir and rmdir will proceed no matter what. > Also, with the deprecated behavior flag set, pre_destroy() doesn't > trigger the warning message. > > Other than that, if memcg people are fine with the change, I'll be > happy to route the changes through cgroup/for-3.5 and stack rmdir > simplification patches on top. > Any suggestion on how to take HugeTLB memcg extension patches [1] upstream. Current patch series I have is on top of cgroup/for-3.5 because I need cgroup_add_files equivalent and cgroup/for-3.5 have changes around that. So if these memcg patches can also go on top of cgroup/for-3.5 then I can continue to work on top of cgroup/for-3.5 ? Can HugeTLB memcg extension patches also go via this tree ? It should actually got via -mm. But then how do we take care of these dependencies ? [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cgroups/1517 -aneesh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>