From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753734Ab0I2Hut (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:50:49 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:43025 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751609Ab0I2Hus (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:50:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:44 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michael Holzheu , Oleg Nesterov , Shailabh Nagar , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Mahoney , Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches Message-ID: <20100929075044.GF4261@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20100928142058.796669370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100928135117.4fdd5799.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100928135117.4fdd5799.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton [2010-09-28 13:51:17]: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:58 +0200 > Michael Holzheu wrote: > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > It would be great, if you could accept the taskstats cleanup patches that > > are the prerequisite for the taskstats precise accounting patches. The > > patches do not add any new functionality. I think they make the code better > > readable and extensible: > > * 01/02: taskstats: Separate taskstats commands > > * 02/02: taskstats: Split fill_pid function > > > > Sure. > > I've been sitting on a couple of taskstats patches for ages. Mel's > delay-accounting-re-implement-c-for-getdelaysc-to-report-information-on-a-target-command.patch > and Jeff's delayacct-align-to-8-byte-boundary-on-64-bit-systems.patch. > > I have notes against both of these indicating that Balbir had concerns > and as far as I know those concerns remain unresolved. So I'll drop > those patches now - can you guys please reactivate them if you still > think we should be making these changes? > Hi, Andrew, My concern with Jeff's patch was that it might break existing applications. He clarified it does not, I had requested for a version bump since the patches change some definitions I had no concerns (IIRC) with Mel's patches. Mel wanted me to implement the "-c" option we had earlier. -- Three Cheers, Balbir