Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:38:10 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure |
| |
On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Unless folks have strong objection to it, I prefer "cptctlr", the way it is. >
By definition any container (about to be renamed control group) subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit redundant.
Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched"
Paul - 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/
| |