Re: [PATCH -mm] Hook up group scheduler with control groups

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:42:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > @@ -219,6 +225,9 @@ static inline struct task_grp *task_grp(
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED
> >  	tg = p->user->tg;
> > +#elif CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED
> > +	tg = container_of(task_subsys_state(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id),
> > +				struct task_grp, css);
> >  #else
> >  	tg  = &init_task_grp;
> >  #endif
> 
> that's a bit funny-looking.  Are CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED and
> CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED mutually exclusive?

Yes. While configuring kernel, user can choose only one of those options
and not both.

>  Doesn't seem that way.

Hmm ..why do you say that?

> if
> they're both defined then CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED "wins".
> Anyway, please confirm that this is correct?

They can't both be defined.

> I'll switch that to `#elif defined(CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED)'.  We can get
> gcc warnings with `#if CONFIG_FOO', and people should be using `#ifdef
> CONFIG_FOO', so I assume the same applies to #elif.

Thx for fixing it!

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/