Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:07:10 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     "haifeng.xu" <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Cc:     longman@redhat.com, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Clean up cpuset_task_status_allowed
Message-ID: <Y4TqvlOmXqY/CBEc@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20221125075133.12718-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221125075133.12718-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 07:51:33AM +0000, haifeng.xu wrote:
> cpuset_task_status_allowed just shows mems_allowed status, so
> rename it to task_mems_allowed. Moreover, it's only used in
> proc_pid_status, so move it to fs/proc/array.c. There is no
> intentional function change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: haifeng.xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>

mems_allowed being a very much cpuset feature, I don't see how this is an
improvement. The new code is different and can be another way of doing it,
sure, but there's no inherent benefit to it. What's the point of the churn?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun