From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755691Ab2DEHgZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:36:25 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34547 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752035Ab2DEHgX (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:36:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1333611379.7783.143.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd From: Mike Galbraith To: David Rientjes Cc: Tejun Heo , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Menage , LKML , Andrew Morton , Li Zefan Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:36:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1333475906.7439.7.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333535915.7188.18.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333542649.7188.40.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20120404230922.GC2173@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <1333601231.7783.31.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333604949.7783.76.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333608177.7783.106.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:49 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > The last time we went through this, it was left after Andrew had fixed it > > > up when the cpusets version was merged in -mm without any disagreement > > > from Peter who was cc'd and that version was acked both by myself and Paul > > > Menage at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/14/402. Andrew dropped it and > > > asked for a repost since there was some on-going scheduler work going on > > > in linux-next that caused that version not to apply. No follow-up was > > > ever offered. > > > > Hm, I thought I did that. > > > > There's no reply from you to Andrew's email unless it was private. Maybe I didn't, busy as hell happens a lot these days. > > > Why have we now gone in a completely different direction again? > > > > I already said that after Peter griped and suggested global, I thought > > about it, and liked that better. > > I think you're taking Peter's questions as a nack. He asked a question, I > answered it. He didn't participate in the thread after October 20. > Andrew's email to you asking for a new version is December 14 with these > lines: > > Acked-by: David Rientjes > Acked-by: Paul Menage > Cc: Tejun Heo > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > > He's been cc'd the whole time. Looking through the lengthy emails, he > never actually nack'd _any_ version of this patch. He asked why not do it > for all cgroups. That's it. That question made perfect sense to me. Putting a global resource in any bin of any sort makes little if any sense. > I'm hoping you will take this bug more seriously. Look, I merely reminded Tehun that the problem had never been resolved. I was asked to post, and did that. Don't get upset with me for posting the solution I like best. If I weren't taking the bug seriously enough (small as it is), I wouldn't have reminded Tehun. I fixed my customers problems the global way months ago, could have and likely should have ignored the fact that buglet lives on in mainline. -Mike