Re: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> > The last time we went through this, it was left after Andrew had fixed it 
> > up when the cpusets version was merged in -mm without any disagreement 
> > from Peter who was cc'd and that version was acked both by myself and Paul 
> > Menage at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/14/402.  Andrew dropped it and 
> > asked for a repost since there was some on-going scheduler work going on 
> > in linux-next that caused that version not to apply.  No follow-up was 
> > ever offered.
> 
> Hm, I thought I did that.
> 

There's no reply from you to Andrew's email unless it was private.

> > Why have we now gone in a completely different direction again?
> 
> I already said that after Peter griped and suggested global, I thought
> about it, and liked that better.

I think you're taking Peter's questions as a nack.  He asked a question, I 
answered it.  He didn't participate in the thread after October 20.  
Andrew's email to you asking for a new version is December 14 with these 
lines:

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Paul Menage <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>

He's been cc'd the whole time.  Looking through the lengthy emails, he 
never actually nack'd _any_ version of this patch.  He asked why not do it 
for all cgroups.  That's it.

If cpusets is a cgroup, why would he nack a patch that does it for cpusets 
that addresses a cpusets problem if he was asking to do it for _all_ 
cgroups including cpusets?

> The submitted patchlet can either fly
> or die.  It's not a big deal.
> 

I'm hoping you will take this bug more seriously.
--
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/