Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:00, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> The use of the 'ignore_nice' sysfs file is confusing to anyone using it.
> This removes the sysfs file 'ignore_nice' and in its place creates a
> 'ignore_nice_load' entry which defaults to '0'; meaning nice'd processes
> *are* counted towards the 'business' caclulation.

My 'nice'd compiles thank you from the bottom of their little cc1 hearts for 
changing your mind.

Cheers,
Con

Attachment: pgpj7EinV2aXf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
    • From: Alexander Clouter <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
    • From: Alexander Clouter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC, PATCH] Slab counter troubles with swap prefetch?
• Next by Date: Re: [Patch 07/20] V4L (939) Support for nebula rc5 based gpio remote
• Previous by thread: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]