Matthew Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry to reply a long quiet thread,
Is appreciated, thanks. > but I've been trading emails with Paul > Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince either him > or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM is as easy as I once believed. I'm > still convinced the CPU side is doable, but I haven't managed as much success > with the memory binding side of CPUSETs. In light of this, I'd like to > remove > my previous objections to CPUSETs moving forward. If others still have > things > they want discussed before CPUSETs moves into mainline, that's fine, but it > seems to me that CPUSETs offer legitimate functionality and that the code has > certainly "done its time" in -mm to convince me it's stable and usable. OK, I'll add cpusets to the 2.6.12 queue. going once, going twice... ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
