Hi Paul,

Paul Menage wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>>
>> The revoke patches, for example, select CONFIG_MM_OWNER independently of
>> cgroups. Therefore, don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER in cgroup specific code.
> 
> Yes, the existing code doesn't seem quite right - if !CONFIG_MM_OWNER
> then we don't need to even define a trivial version of
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks()
> 
> But your patch is too specific - tying the existance of
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() to the memory controller would break other
> controllers (e.g. the memrlimit or swap controllers, which also want
> to use it)
> 
> How about:
> 
> - any cgroup that needs mm-owner callbacks selects an option
> CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK
> 
> - CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK selects MM_OWNER and triggers the
> definition of a non-trivial cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() function

Yeah, sounds good to me. I just want to be able to select 
CONFIG_MM_OWNER separately for my revoke patches.

		Pekka
--
unsubscribe notice
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/