Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:38:10AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > By definition any container (about to be renamed control group) > subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit > redundant. > > Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched" Done (in the latest patch I sent a while back)! -- Regards, vatsa - 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/
Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure
On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unless folks have strong objection to it, I prefer "cptctlr", the way it is. > By definition any container (about to be renamed control group) subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit redundant. Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched" Paul - 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/