On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Balbir.
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:56:34AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> [off-topic] Has the unified hierarchy been agreed upon? I did not
>> follow that thread
>
> I consider it agreed upon enough. There of course are objections but
>
Hello, Balbir.
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:56:34AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> [off-topic] Has the unified hierarchy been agreed upon? I did not
> follow that thread
I consider it agreed upon enough. There of course are objections but
I feel fairly comfortable with the amount of existing consens
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> cgroup_event is way over-designed and tries to build a generic
> flexible event mechanism into cgroup - fully customizable event
> specification for each user of the interface. This is utterly
> unnecessary and overboard especially in the light o
δΊ 2013/8/5 0:07, Tejun Heo ει:
> cgroup_event is way over-designed and tries to build a generic
> flexible event mechanism into cgroup - fully customizable event
> specification for each user of the interface. This is utterly
> unnecessary and overboard especially in the light of the planned
> uni
4 matches
Mail list logo
