From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757749Ab1LNSGf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:06:35 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55156 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755466Ab1LNSGd (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:06:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:08:51 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the cgroup tree Message-Id: <20111214100851.2ead3872.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20111214161628.GC10791@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <20111214175101.daac0549e5ed9d766c3a9bb5@canb.auug.org.au> <20111214161628.GC10791@somewhere.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:16:31 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > cgroups: new cancel_attach_task() subsystem callback > > cgroups: ability to stop res charge propagation on bounded ancestor > > cgroups: add res counter common ancestor searching > > res_counter: allow charge failure pointer to be null > > cgroups: pull up res counter charge failure interpretation to caller > > cgroups: allow subsystems to cancel a fork > > cgroups: add a task counter subsystem > > cgroups: ERR_PTR needs err.h > > cgroup: Fix task counter common ancestor logic > > cgroup-fix-task-counter-common-ancestor-logic-checkpatch-fixes > > > > I am wondering if that patch set should be included in the cgroup tree? > > That would be probably the easier solution. > Andrew, do you mind if I rebase these patches and target them to Tejun's > tree instead? Sure, that works, I'll drop them. > We can keep them on a standalone branch there based on Tejuns until > we reach an agreement on their upstreamability. I wondered what had been happening with that discussion. I guess we need to restart it.