On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:17:15PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:45:13PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hey, Greg. > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:19:53PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > It's really late in the -rc cycle for me to take this for 3.14, but I > > > > see patch 1 is a good one to have, so I'll take that now, and queue the > > > > rest up for after 3.14-rc1 is out for 3.15. Is that ok with you, or do > > > > you have patches that depend on this series for 3.14? > > > > > > Oh nevermind, these are all good, now applied :) > > > > I don't have anything depending on the series for the up coming merge > > window so 3.15 merge window would have been fine but 3.14 merge > > windows wokrs too. :) > > Greg, I'm sorry but can you please revert the whole series? > get_active() waiting while a node is deactivated has potential to lead > to deadlock and that deactivate/reactivate interface is something > fundamentally flawed and that cgroup will have to work with the > remove_self() like everybody else. IOW, I think the first posting was > correct. > > I think we better defer this to the next window and I'll do the whole > thing - kernfs updates & cgroup conversion - together and then push > out patches so that I don't repeat these mistakes. > > Sorry about the mess. I got tunnel-visioned thinking about cgroup > semantics too much.
No worries, but it is sad, I really liked seeing that odd "remove self" function go away. I've now reverted all 15 patches, please verify that I didn't mess anything up in my tree somehow. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
