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

[Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com>]

Hi Alex,

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:

> Morning Ken,
>
> Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> [20051122 01:21:18 +0000]:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> Con complained about that one too, rightly so.  If you look more recently you
> will see that the default is actually now '0' so nice'd processes do count
> towards the business calculation....I guess I could submit *another* more or
> less duplicate patch to really confuse things to rename the sysfs entry again
> and it to expect a huge prime number to ignore nice'd processes ;)
>
> Guess you can go back to your initscript and remove that entry :P
>
> Cheers
>
> Alex

 If the default is that nice'd processes do count, then I'm happy (and 
I've yet again showed my lack of understanding).  Thanks.

Ken
--
 das eine Mal als Trag�die, das andere Mal als Farce