Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:17:44 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v6) |
| |
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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
| |