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.
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>

Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

---

 include/linux/cgroup.h |    4 ++--

 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h

index c98dd7c..e270ec3 100644

--- a/include/linux/cgroup.h

+++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h

@@ -413,10 +413,10 @@ static inline int cgroupstats_build(struct cgroupstats *stats,
 #endif /* !CONFIG_CGROUPS */
-#ifdef CONFIG_MM_OWNER

+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR

 extern void

 cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new);

-#else /* !CONFIG_MM_OWNER */

+#else /* !CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR */

 static inline void

 cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new)

 {

--

1.5.4.3
--

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
--

Hi Paul,
Yeah, sounds good to me. I just want to be able to select

CONFIG_MM_OWNER separately for my revoke patches.
		Pekka

--