Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:49:32 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |