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

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:38:10AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> 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"

Done (in the latest patch I sent a while back)!

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/

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]>
- Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
  - From: "Paul Menage" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
Next by Date: Re: [NFS] [BUG] 2.6.23-rc5 kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945
Previous by thread: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
Next by thread: 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]