On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:04:35 +0300, Al Boldi said: > The important part here is 'unless there is a way to relate them', at which > point UP and MP should be conceptually the same, while possibly differing in > the implementation details. Oh, OK. I think we're actually in agreement, just using different terms for the same thing - what you were considering multiple related queues, I'd consider one unified queue with subqueuing of some sort.. ;)
Attachment:
pgpxwKakFdzSZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: [email protected]
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Prev by Date: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Next by Date: Re: VIA x86-64 bootlogs needed
- Previous by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Next by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org
- Index(es):