Hello, On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:14:12AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > The general idea of passing consistent information to all *attach > methods seems good, but isn't it simpler to just fix up the various > method signatures? I think having separate ->attach() and ->attach_task() is inherently broken. Look at the memcg discussion I had in this thread for reference and as soon as we need to do something across the tasks being migrated, iteration-by-callback becomes very painful. e.g. let's say memcg wants to find the mm->owner and wants to print warning or fail if that doesn't work out. How would that be implemented if it's iterating by callback. > The whole point of having *attach() and *attach_task() was to minimize > the amount of boilerplate (in this case, iterating across a new > cgroup_taskset abstraction) in the subsystems, leaving that to the > cgroups framework. Yeah, I agree with making things easier for subsystems but I violently disagree that iteration-by-callback is helpful in any way. If control-loop style iterator is at all possible, it's almost always better to go that way. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
