On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 2 June 2016 at 01:41, Yuyang Du <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:29:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> > My response to your above two comments: > >> > > >> > As I said, there can be four possibilities going through the above > >> > sequences: > >> > > >> > (1) on_rq, (2) !on_rq, (a) was fair class (representing last_update_time > >> > != 0), > >> > (b) never was fair class (representing last_update_time == 0, but may > >> > not be > >> > limited to this) > >> > > >> > Crossing them, we have (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), and (2)(b). > >> > > >> > Some will attach twice, which are (1)(b) and (2)(b), the other will > >> > attach > >> > once, which are (1)(a) and (2)(a). The difficult part is they can be > >> > attached > >> > at different places. > >> > >> ok for (1)(b) but not for (2)(b) and it's far from "attached mostly > >> twice every time" > > > > You are right. That claim is reckless, I will change it to: > > "sometimes attached twice". > > Or you can just describe the used case (1)(b) which is the only one AFAICT
You are right again, ;)
