On 04/04/2013 07:22 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> But what harm does an additional reference do? >> >> No harm at all. I just wanted to be sure that this is not yet another >> "for memcg" hack. So if this is useful for other controllers then I have >> no objections of course. > > I think it makes sense in general, so let's do it in cgroup core. I > suppose it'd be easier for this to be routed together with other memcg > changes? > > Thanks. > You guys seems already settled, but FWIW I agree with Tejun here. It makes sense from a design point of view for a cgroup to pin its parent. cgroup core it is.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
