Re: Question on Scheduler activations

2005-03-18 Thread Diego Calleja
El Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:46:42 +0530, Imanpreet Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any. What "Update: this document is obsolete" means is that the document is obsolete. Probably it should include a link to http://people

Re: Question on Scheduler activations

2005-03-18 Thread Imanpreet Arora
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RTFM On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RTFM I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any. -- Imanpreet Singh Arora - To unsubscribe

Re: Question on Scheduler activations

2005-03-18 Thread Hong Kong Phoey
RTFM On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:38:45 +0530, Imanpreet Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > >I came across > >http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html > >It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler > activations are BAD. Th

Question on Scheduler activations

2005-03-18 Thread Imanpreet Arora
Hello, I came across http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler activations are BAD. Then it delves on the possible implementation of Scheduler activations in Linux. Though I know that