* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:28] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's not worth my time to engage someone with your mind set, you > > posses neither the technical nor interpersonal skill to be useful > > to me. > > This could be the beginning of a wonderful friendship... > > > For context see my replies in this thread to Kip Macy which explains > > how one deals with the false-problems you mention. > > I did read them, and I'm not convinced at all. You are asking for a > large amount of complexity to be added to the system, but you refuse to > tell us what you're actually trying to do. Are you worried that we > might actually figure out a way to do it without raping the scheduler?
As already explained by Kip, the goal is to avoid switching out a lock owner due to quantum exhaustion at an inopportune time. We have needs that may wind up not being applicable to FreeBSD, however if we can accomplish this in a way that is not too awful we would likely be sharing the code, no matter how annoying you make it. :) -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
