Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks

From: Reid Hekman (reid.hekman@ndsu.nodak.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 23:56:36 EST

Next message: Neil Brown: "Re: tmpfs, NFS, file handles"
Previous message: kravetz@us.ibm.com: "Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
In reply to: Kimio Suganuma: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 20:29, Kimio Suganuma wrote:
> Smallest, simplest and correct...

Actually, I think the appropriate responsive axiom is, "pick two."

> I wish I could figure out such codes. :(
>

Don't we all.

Regards,
Reid

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Neil Brown: "Re: tmpfs, NFS, file handles"
Previous message: kravetz@us.ibm.com: "Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
In reply to: Kimio Suganuma: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:29 EST