Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:54:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:54:29 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.176.19]:57033 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:54:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:56:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Adrian Bunk X-X-Sender: bunk@mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de To: Andrew Rodland cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OKS] O(1) scheduler in 2.4 In-Reply-To: <20020705021827.713e4cc6.arodland@noln.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1102 Lines: 34 On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Andrew Rodland wrote: >... > Very nearly off topic, but I've had a few people on IRC tell me that > they love O(1) specifically because it has a 'nice that actually does > something'. As a matter of fact, I've had to change my X startup > scripts, to make it a bit less selfish; the defaults are just plain > silly, now. >... This is exactly a reason why O(1) shouldn't go into 2.4: E.g. my X is as suggested by my the installation routine of my distribution (Debian unstable/testing) niced to -10. It would be a bad surprise for _many_ people if they upgrade their 2.4 kernel because of other security and/or stability fixes and such a setting is then wrong. cu Adrian -- You only think this is a free country. Like the US the UK spends a lot of time explaining its a free country because its a police state. Alan Cox - 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/