Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v6)

[Paul Menage]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > Even better, maybe just pass in the relevant cgroup_subsys_state
>  > objects here, rather than the cgroup objects?
>  >
>
>  Is that better than passing the cgroups? All the callbacks I see usually pass
>  either task_struct or cgroup. Won't it be better, consistent use of API to pass
>  either of those?

I have a long term plan to try to divorce the subsystems from having
to worry too much about actual control groups where possible.

But I guess that for consistency with the current API, passing in the
cgroup is OK.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/