On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 01:07:53 -0700 "Paul Menage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - CONTAINER_DEBUG should depend on CONTAINERS > > CONTAINER_DEBUG is actually a container subsystem whose sole purpose > is to provide debugging information about any hierarchy that it's > mounted as a part of. So in some senses it's in the same boat as > something like cpusets or the RSS controller. CONFIG_CONTAINER_DEBUG > doesn't affect any of the container framework code. Oh, that's right. But it still should depend on CONTAINERS > > > > - the CPUSETS && SMP is weird and should be deleted, unless I'm missing > > something > > Cpusets depends on SMP in the vanilla tree, so that's not anything new > that I added. Oh, OK, so CPUSETS is nor a client of CONTAINERS: so it depneds on CONTAINERS > > > > - CONTAINERS should depend on CPUSETS > > You mean the other way around? yup > > > > - That leaves CONTAINER_CPUACCT. > > Really, CONTAINER_CPUACCT should have the same relationship to > CONTAINERS as CPUSETS does. > Would it not be simplest to have CONTAINERS as the top-level user-configurable item and to then have everything else depend on it? select is a nasty thing - we repeatedly have problems when using it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
