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

[Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1058 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:

>> >  Just what have you cpufreq guys got against nice'd processes ?  It's
>> > enough to drive a man to powernowd ;)
>>
>> The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah,
>> this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears
>> in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way.
>>
>> I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do,
>> we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo
>> seems ultimately pointless.
>
> Eh? I thought he was agreeing with niced processes running full speed but that
> he misunderstood that that was the new default. Oh well I should have just
> shut up.
>
> Con
>

  Hi Con,

  looks as if I did misunderstand the default.  In the last week I've 
seen occasional comments on this from both sides of the debate, so I 
read the description and got it wrong.

  Now, if you gentlement will excuse me, I'll just wipe this egg off my 
face.

Ken
-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce