Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:10:26 +0530 | From | Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] Hook up group scheduler with control groups |
| |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:42:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > @@ -219,6 +225,9 @@ static inline struct task_grp *task_grp( > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED > > tg = p->user->tg; > > +#elif CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED > > + tg = container_of(task_subsys_state(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id), > > + struct task_grp, css); > > #else > > tg = &init_task_grp; > > #endif > > that's a bit funny-looking. Are CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED and > CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED mutually exclusive?
Yes. While configuring kernel, user can choose only one of those options and not both.
> Doesn't seem that way.
Hmm ..why do you say that?
> if > they're both defined then CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED "wins". > Anyway, please confirm that this is correct?
They can't both be defined.
> I'll switch that to `#elif defined(CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED)'. We can get > gcc warnings with `#if CONFIG_FOO', and people should be using `#ifdef > CONFIG_FOO', so I assume the same applies to #elif.
Thx for fixing it!
-- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |