Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Oct 2010 22:11:10 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2010-09-29 11:01:13]:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:44 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2010-09-28 13:51:17]: > > > > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:58 +0200 > > > Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > > > > > It would be great, if you could accept the taskstats cleanup patches that > > > > are the prerequisite for the taskstats precise accounting patches. The > > > > patches do not add any new functionality. I think they make the code better > > > > readable and extensible: > > > > * 01/02: taskstats: Separate taskstats commands > > > > * 02/02: taskstats: Split fill_pid function > > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > I've been sitting on a couple of taskstats patches for ages. Mel's > > > delay-accounting-re-implement-c-for-getdelaysc-to-report-information-on-a-target-command.patch > > > and Jeff's delayacct-align-to-8-byte-boundary-on-64-bit-systems.patch. > > > > > > I have notes against both of these indicating that Balbir had concerns > > > and as far as I know those concerns remain unresolved. So I'll drop > > > those patches now - can you guys please reactivate them if you still > > > think we should be making these changes? > > > > > > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > My concern with Jeff's patch was that it might break existing > > applications. He clarified it does not, I had requested for a version > > bump since the patches change some definitions > > > > I had no concerns (IIRC) with Mel's patches. Mel wanted me to > > implement the "-c" option we had earlier. > > > > hm, OK, thanks, I requeued them for 2.6.37.
Thanks, Andrew!
-- Three Cheers, Balbir
| |