From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/51] memcg: add mem_cgroup_root_css Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:17:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20150619151719.GI12934@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1432329245-5844-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1432329245-5844-7-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20150617145642.GI25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150617182500.GI22637@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150618111227.GA5858@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150618174930.GA12934@mtj.duckdns.org> <20150619091848.GE4913@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, jack-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org, hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, clm-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org, gthelen-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, khlebnikov-XoJtRXgx1JseBXzfvpsJ4g@public.gmane.org To: Michal Hocko Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150619091848.GE4913-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:18:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 18-06-15 13:49:30, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] > > > I have tried to compile with !CONFIG_MEMCG and !CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK > > > without mem_cgroup_root_css defined for this configuration and > > > mm/backing-dev.c compiles just fine. So maybe we should get rid of it > > > rather than have a potentially tricky code? > > > > Yeah, please feel free to queue a patch to remove it if doesn't break > > anything. > > Against which branch should a I generate the patch? It's in the for-4.2/writeback branch of the block tree; however, a patch against -mm should work, right? Thanks. -- tejun