lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> > The last time we went through this, it was left after Andrew had fixed it
> > up when the cpusets version was merged in -mm without any disagreement
> > from Peter who was cc'd and that version was acked both by myself and Paul
> > Menage at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/14/402. Andrew dropped it and
> > asked for a repost since there was some on-going scheduler work going on
> > in linux-next that caused that version not to apply. No follow-up was
> > ever offered.
>
> Hm, I thought I did that.
>

There's no reply from you to Andrew's email unless it was private.

> > Why have we now gone in a completely different direction again?
>
> I already said that after Peter griped and suggested global, I thought
> about it, and liked that better.

I think you're taking Peter's questions as a nack. He asked a question, I
answered it. He didn't participate in the thread after October 20.
Andrew's email to you asking for a new version is December 14 with these
lines:

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>

He's been cc'd the whole time. Looking through the lengthy emails, he
never actually nack'd _any_ version of this patch. He asked why not do it
for all cgroups. That's it.

If cpusets is a cgroup, why would he nack a patch that does it for cpusets
that addresses a cpusets problem if he was asking to do it for _all_
cgroups including cpusets?

> The submitted patchlet can either fly
> or die. It's not a big deal.
>

I'm hoping you will take this bug more seriously.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-05 08:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans