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

[Alexander Clouter <alex@digriz.org.uk>]

Con,

Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> [20051111 02:48:57 +1100]:
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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 '1'; meaning nice'd processes
> > are not counted towards the 'business' caclulation.
> 
> And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet 
> to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default 
> for ondemand.
> 
....resubmitting with alternative defaults....

Cheers

Alex

> Regards,
> Con

-- 
 ____________________________________
/ "An ounce of prevention is worth a \
\ pound of purge."                   /
 ------------------------------------
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature