Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure

On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Unless folks have strong objection to it, I prefer "cptctlr", the way it is.
>

By definition any container (about to be renamed control group)
subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit
redundant.

Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched"

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
    • From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
    • From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
    • From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH RFC 5/9] RCU: CPU hotplug support for preemptible RCU
• Next by Date: [PATCH RFC 6/9] RCU priority boosting for preemptible RCU
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
• Next by thread: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]