lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-28 04:53    [W:0.080 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site