On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>
> Thoughts/objections?
I'm not an OOB user so I will abstatin, but it sounds like a nice
simplification and I am interested to hear from actual OOB users.
cjl
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.lapt
+1
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Hi,
I'm proposing the following change to olpc-os-builder configuration
files for 12.1.0 and onwards:
Currently, the set of modules to load is specified by a "modules"
configuration variable in the [global] section. Then, settings for
each module can be customised by adding a [section] for each m
On 02.03.2012, at 18:49, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Upgrade online with:
>
> olpc-update 11.3.1_xo1.75-28
That should be
olpc-update 11.3.1_xo1.75-29
and yes it works (from os28)
- Bert -
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
htt
This build brings in OFW improvements, audio fixes, olpc-update,
ds-backup, powerd and new power logging scripts.
It should be updatable via olpc-update -- try the cmdline below.
Notes:
- In normal use, the laptop sometimes hangs when idle; very likely
when it is suspending or resuming; please
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:19:43AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> > > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
> > > > inversion. If the low priority process does:
> > > >
> > > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
> > > >flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
> > > >
> > > >
Hi,
Fedora is switching away from ConsoleKit and is using systemd instead
[1]. Looks like olpc-utils needs to be updated to reflect that. We seem
to open/close a ConsoleKit session in olpc-dm.c.
Regards,
Simon
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval
[2] http://dev.laptop.org/
On Mar 2, 2012 11:06 AM, "Lennert Buytenhek" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
>
> > > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
> > > inversion. If the low priority process does:
> > >
> > >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> > One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
> > inversion. If the low priority process does:
> >
> >fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
> >flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
> >
> > and the high priority proces
On Mar 2, 2012 10:37 AM, "Lennert Buytenhek" wrote:
>
> One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
> inversion. If the low priority process does:
>
>fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
>flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
>
> and the high priority process then also does:
>
>
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
inversion. If the low priority process does:
fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
and the high priority process then also does:
fd = open("/foo/bar", O_RDWR);
flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
a
Although the idea sounds good, the mechanism of using nice is very 2007
:-) This should be accomplished by putting this type of process in a
specific cgroup. We can then use the cgroup freezer to freeze all tasks in
that group, and thaw it when we see fit.
I used a similar mechanism to fix the p
Here's a power-saving idea that's been marinating since 2007 (in an
obscure corner of my mail queue). When I reviewed it today I didn't
see anything too wrong with it.
John
Message-Id: <200710240912.l9o9c1k2026...@new.toad.com>
To: gnu
Subject: OLPC idea: set a niceness value under which
13 matches
Mail list logo