From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932368AbXCGQBo (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:01:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932403AbXCGQBn (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:01:43 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:23286 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932368AbXCGQBm (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:01:42 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=aILxisF5v7mIVlycPTcmLvCGS4Y+eTIsNh1Dg/PvSh/rr8TYKY3JhylLfSuNO3cw6 ctvHUc0TtdBpznfkop5KA== Message-ID: <6599ad830703070801r3f4cd5bak8cbc9b3090ec4490@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:01:32 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: vatsa@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] containers (V7): Cpusets hooked into containers Cc: akpm@osdl.org, pj@sgi.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com, mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <20070307143412.GC32105@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070212085104.290909000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070307143412.GC32105@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:23AM -0800, menage@google.com wrote: > > /* > > @@ -913,12 +537,14 @@ static int update_nodemask(struct cpuset > > int migrate; > > int fudge; > > int retval; > > + struct container *cont; > > This seems to be redundant? It gets used in the lower loop checking for processes whose memory policies we should be rebinding. Paul