Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/11] sched: rt-group: uid-group interface | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:35:32 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:31 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 12:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 16:27 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:57:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > Subject: sched: rt-group: add uid-group interface > > > > > > > > Extend the /sys/kernel/uids/<uid>/ interface to allow setting > > > > the group's rt_period and rt_runtime. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > Cool stuff! I will try out these patches and try to give you some > > > feedback. > > > > Thanks, much appreciated! > > > > > One request though, could you please add some documentation to > > > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-uids? > > > > I already have documentation on the todo list, I'll add this file to > > that list :-) > > Care to rebase the patch against -mm, we fixed the mixed-up usage > of ksets and kobjects, and this can not apply anymore: > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/patches.git;a=blob;f=driver/struct-user_info-sysfs.patch;hb=HEAD > > There is also an attribute group now which makes it much easier to add > new files.
Ingo, Greg,
What would be the easiest way to carry this forward? sched-devel and greg's tree would intersect at this point and leave poor akpm with the resulting mess. Should I just make an incremental patch akpm can carry and push? Or can we base one tree off the other?
| |