Hi,
[re-sent publicly, I did not "Replied-to-all":)]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>>
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
>> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
>&g
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> (OT, yes, but I'd like to take a stab at explaining "why" these things
> fall to the wayside..)
>
> On 7 July 2011 12:08, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> What would be the point to even start looking at an
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 7 July 2011 09:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:17:51AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Offer a bounty for getting it fixed?
>>>
>>
>> steve == ENOMONEY && jeffr == ENOTIME
>>
>> And, 4BSD works.
>
> I meant it as a
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 05:29:24PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
>>
>> I use SCHED_ULE on all machines, since it is supposed to be performing
>> better on multicore boxes, but there are lots of suggestions switching
>> back to the old SCHED_4B
