On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 03:57:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > After discussing at the LPC2014 Dusseldorf, it appears the idea is
> > good but the approach is wrong. The latency tracking must be done at
> > the device level, per device and not in t
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 03:57:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> After discussing at the LPC2014 Dusseldorf, it appears the idea is
> good but the approach is wrong. The latency tracking must be done at
> the device level, per device and not in the task as what is doing this
> patchset.
end_page_
2 matches
Mail list logo
