From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932209AbXG2REZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:04:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764046AbXG2RES (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:04:18 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:48362 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762774AbXG2RER (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:04:17 -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=qX0dDPG/WY0+lROligIEPin8bf/fgba3rusNUaT3z5HAOXeOCw2cj5gEzgnsLib13 eaa45CQ0zJPwGkwSoQtqw== Message-ID: <6599ad830707291003s38ccc07ds79b8d0e94469871d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:03:49 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "YAMAMOTO Takashi" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Task Containers(V11): Basic task container framework Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, rohitseth@google.com In-Reply-To: <20070727053120.2EFAC1BF6B8@siro.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070720191247.388947000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070727053120.2EFAC1BF6B8@siro.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/26/07, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > > +Other fields in the container_subsys object include: > > > +- hierarchy: an index indicating which hierarchy, if any, this > > + subsystem is currently attached to. If this is -1, then the > > + subsystem is not attached to any hierarchy, and all tasks should be > > + considered to be members of the subsystem's top_container. It should > > + be initialized to -1. > > stale info? Yes, I think so. I really need to do a proper pass over Documentation/containers.txt one more time following a bunch of recent changes. > > > +struct container { > > > + struct containerfs_root *root; > > + struct container *top_container; > > +}; > > can cont->top_container be different from than &cont->root.top_container? No, I guess it can't. And there are only a couple of places using cont->top_container now, so I should probably remove it. Thanks, Paul