Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
> >> felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
>> felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
>> We can add this flexibility at a later
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
> felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
> We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
Gee the
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
Gee the memory
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can add this flexibility at a later point when
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
> felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
> We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
>
>
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h |6 --
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h |6 --
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530
Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was
felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away.
We can add this flexibility at a later point when required.
12 matches
Mail list logo