On Thu 13-09-12 10:18:32, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I would like to see use_hierarchy go away. The only concern I have is > > to warn only if somebody is doing something wrong (aka flat > > hierarchies). Or better put it this way. Do not warn in cases which do > > not change if use_hierarchy is gone or default changes to 1. > > An example: > > root (use_hierarchy=0) > > | \ > > | A (use_hierarchy=0) > > | > > B (use_hierarachy=1) > > |\ > > C D > > > > is a perfectly sane configuration and I do not see any reason to fill > > logs with some scary warnings when A is created. There will be no > > semantical change in this setup When use_hierchy is gone. > > > > So the only thing I am proposing here is to warn only if something > > should be fixed in the configuration in order to be prepared for fully > > hierarchical (and that is a second level of children from root with > > use_hierachy==0). > > > > Does it make more sense now? > > Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't warn if 0 > .use_hierarchys don't make any behavior difference from when they're > all 1, right?
Exactly. 1st level of children under the root is exactly this kind of setup. > If so, I have no objection. Will incorporate your updated version. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/
