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

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

Hi,

Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> [20051111 10:12:19 +1100]:
>
> 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.
> 
Well I succumbed as there are going to be some rather annoyed amd64 users out 
there wondering why all their nice'd processes are taking forever to 
compile...however it would be kinda of amusing; from my SparcClassic LX 
perspective :)

Cheers

Alex

> Cheers,
> Con

-- 
 _______________________________________
/ An aphorism is never exactly true; it \
| is either a half-truth or             |
| one-and-a-half truths.                |
|                                       |
\ -- Karl Kraus                         /
 ---------------------------------------
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature