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