On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:37:01 -0800 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > yep, grabbed, thanks. The good changelogging and code commenting really help with review - thanks for doing that. It's a shame so few people are interested in reviewing them! (Hint). -- 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>