From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760495AbXGJTFn (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:05:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754113AbXGJTFg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:05:36 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:49187 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753409AbXGJTFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:05:35 -0400 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=ty0ftsAL+wlc6rcOGZOMj/dJdZ1DKNYZZrsO3k+GvWPoqDO2+Na7s6YugDMD+om/U RxJpoX3IVpc05x1QmPdoA== Message-ID: <6599ad830707101205p405167e5t54856e6f6bb752f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:05:14 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: containers (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) Cc: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20070710115319.0bdaff34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070710105240.GA20914@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830707101134k29951c45h4af0807603f52b76@mail.gmail.com> <20070710115319.0bdaff34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/10/07, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andrew, how about we merge enough of the container framework to > > support CFS? Bits we could leave out for now include container_clone() > > support and the nsproxy subsystem, fork/exit callback hooks, and > > possibly leave cpusets alone for now (which would also mean we could > > skip the automatic release-agent stuff). I'm in Tokyo for the Linux > > Foundation Japan symposium right now, but I should be able to get the > > new patchset to you for Friday afternoon. > > mm.. Given that you propose leaving bits out for the 2.6.23 merge, and > that changes are still pending and that nothing will _use_ the framework in > 2.6.23 That's what I was originally thinking too, but since CFS has been merged, CFS group scheduling would use it. Paul