On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 01:07:53 -0700 "Paul Menage" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > - CONTAINER_DEBUG should depend on CONTAINERS
>
> CONTAINER_DEBUG is actually a container subsystem whose sole purpose
> is to provide debugging information about any hierarchy that it's
> mounted as a part of. So in some senses it's in the same boat as
> something like cpusets or the RSS controller. CONFIG_CONTAINER_DEBUG
> doesn't affect any of the container framework code.
Oh, that's right.
But it still should depend on CONTAINERS
> >
> > - the CPUSETS && SMP is weird and should be deleted, unless I'm missing
> > something
>
> Cpusets depends on SMP in the vanilla tree, so that's not anything new
> that I added.
Oh, OK, so CPUSETS is nor a client of CONTAINERS: so it depneds on CONTAINERS
> >
> > - CONTAINERS should depend on CPUSETS
>
> You mean the other way around?
yup
> >
> > - That leaves CONTAINER_CPUACCT.
>
> Really, CONTAINER_CPUACCT should have the same relationship to
> CONTAINERS as CPUSETS does.
>
Would it not be simplest to have CONTAINERS as the top-level
user-configurable item and to then have everything else depend on it?
select is a nasty thing - we repeatedly have problems when using it.
-
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/
[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]
