>The only reason why a 0 was observed, was because the cgroup interface
>files were missing and the old code mapped that to a 0. That's no
>longer the case and, thus, it seems it would make the code clearer if
>it wouldn't be there any more.
>
>I don't feel strongly about this, though, and can just drop this patch.

Hi Severin, thanks for clarification, I'm fine with the patch !

Best regards, Matthias

Reply via email to