Re: [PATCH 12/11] sched: rt-group: uid-group interface

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:35:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 15:31 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2008 12:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 16:27 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:57:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: sched: rt-group: add uid-group interface
> > > > >
> > > > > Extend the /sys/kernel/uids/<uid>/ interface to allow setting
> > > > > the group's rt_period and rt_runtime.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Cool stuff! I will try out these patches and try to give you some
> > > > feedback.
> > >
> > > Thanks, much appreciated!
> > >
> > > > One request though, could you please add some documentation to
> > > > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-uids?
> > >
> > > I already have documentation on the todo list, I'll add this file to
> > > that list :-)
> > 
> > Care to rebase the patch against -mm, we fixed the mixed-up usage
> > of ksets and kobjects, and this can not apply anymore:
> >   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/patches.git;a=blob;f=driver/struct-user_info-sysfs.patch;hb=HEAD
> > 
> > There is also an attribute group now which makes it much easier to add
> > new files.
> 
> Ingo, Greg,
> 
> What would be the easiest way to carry this forward? sched-devel and
> greg's tree would intersect at this point and leave poor akpm with the
> resulting mess. Should I just make an incremental patch akpm can carry
> and push? Or can we base one tree off the other?

If it's just a single patch for this, I'd be glad to take it.  But by
looking at the [11/12] above, I doubt this is so...

If it's not that rough (12 patches is not a big deal), I'd be glad to
take these through my tree, after you fix up Kay's requests above :)

thanks,

greg k-h