Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hey,

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:27:55PM +0400, Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand wrote:
> > I would vote to -mm. Or is there any specific reason to have it in
> > cgroup tree? It doesn't touch any cgroup core parts, does it?
> > 
> Copying Andrew (retroactively sorry you weren't directly CCd on this one
> as well).
> 
> I depend on css_online and the cgroup generic iterator. If they are
> already present @ -mm, then fine.
> (looking now, they seem to be...)

Yeah, they're all in cgroup/for-next so should be available in -mm, so
I think -mm probably is the better tree to route these.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]