Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure

[Paul Menage]

On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/