From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:19:31 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/14] memcg: unlimted root cgroup Message-Id: <20080825121931.2bd134b4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1409530.1219451890296.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <48AF42DC.7020705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080822202720.b7977aab.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080822203025.eb4b2ec3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1409530.1219451890296.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp List-ID: On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:38:10 +0900 (JST) kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com wrote: > >Is this a generic implementation to support no limits? If not, why not store > the > >root memory controller pointer and see if someone is trying to set a limit on > that? > > > Just because I designed this for supporting trash-box and changed my mind.. > Sorry. If pointer comparison is better, I'll do that. > I decieded to use follwoing macro instead of memcg->no_limit. #define is_root_cgroup(cgrp) ((cgrp) == &init_mem_cgroup) Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org