Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 07:40:07PM +0100, TooMany Secrets wrote:
On 1/20/08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason C. Wells wrote:
The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD are inconsistent with
information found in the email archives. LINT say
Jason C. Wells wrote:
X-Face:
#0jV*~a}VtKS-&E/!EJpH('H1Va}24dxF0oT&+.R3Gu8C;xhSC+<|+H84&YLbMvphuRT4cp3.|8EN_(2Eix/6{.Up~u`a^}0Ln&b+9Fw|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&ZwA]5%_AU?}DezfE&1!>H?3E$!Yve7.O<+..Jnb4:'6Ey_]FtFzU9=*l$1p/@gA,Ze>^5<]+r(XJ+m7`/vMDc$'wy|$nE`e
> The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4B
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 07:40:07PM +0100, TooMany Secrets wrote:
> On 1/20/08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jason C. Wells wrote:
> > > The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD are inconsistent with
> > > information found in the email archives. LINT says ULE is e
On 1/20/08, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason C. Wells wrote:
> > The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD are inconsistent with
> > information found in the email archives. LINT says ULE is experimental.
> > The handbook doesn't mention ULE at all. The archive
Jason C. Wells wrote:
The comments regarding SCHED_ULE and SCHED_4BSD are inconsistent with
information found in the email archives. LINT says ULE is experimental.
The handbook doesn't mention ULE at all. The archives say ULE is the
new recommended scheduler.
If ULE is in fact the curren
