From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752553Ab2DEGtg (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:49:36 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:33271 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751890Ab2DEGte (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:49:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:49:32 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Mike Galbraith cc: Tejun Heo , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Menage , LKML , Andrew Morton , Li Zefan Subject: Re: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd In-Reply-To: <1333608177.7783.106.camel@marge.simpson.net> Message-ID: References: <1333475906.7439.7.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333535915.7188.18.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333542649.7188.40.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20120404230922.GC2173@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <1333601231.7783.31.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333604949.7783.76.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1333608177.7783.106.camel@marge.simpson.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 Acked-by: Paul Menage Cc: Tejun Heo Cc: Peter Zijlstra 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.