lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/11] sched: rt-group: uid-group interface
From
Date

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?





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-09 00:39    [W:0.043 / U:5.920 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site