On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:43:49 +0100
Joseph Reeves wrote:
> Great, thanks Tom, I'll have a look at that later. Does it seem to
> make any difference for you?
It's difficult to say, really. I haven't done any "scientific" tests,
but it feels a little faster in some areas (suspend/resume, Illume
sli
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:43:49 +0100
Joseph Reeves wrote:
> Great, thanks Tom, I'll have a look at that later. Does it seem to
> make any difference for you?
It's difficult to say, really. I haven't done any "scientific" tests,
but it feels a little faster in some areas (suspend/resume, Illume
sli
Great, thanks Tom, I'll have a look at that later. Does it seem to
make any difference for you?
Cheers, Joseph
2009/9/9 Thomas White :
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:27:13 +0100
> Joseph Reeves wrote:
>
>> > Now for someone to find the time to try this ;-)
>>
>> I applied the latest BFS patch to the
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:27:13 +0100
Joseph Reeves wrote:
> > Now for someone to find the time to try this ;-)
>
> I applied the latest BFS patch to the andy-tracking branch of the
> kernel but it wouldn't build - probably an indication of my noob
> kernel skills rather than the applicability of th
> What's up with the drivers from OpenWRT? Are they different? Why aren't they
> merged?
I've only really read on here about them, but I'm told that some are
complete rewrites that provide potentially big improvements. Don't
know about their status in other distributions, however.
Forgot to add
What's up with the drivers from OpenWRT? Are they different? Why aren't they
merged?
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:04:56AM +0100, Joseph Reeves wrote:
> SHR + 2.6.31 + BFS + OpenWRT drivers = win?
>
> 2009/9/8 Laszlo KREKACS :
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Joseph Reeves wrote:
> SHR + 2.6.31 + BFS + OpenWRT drivers = win?
+KMS
Laszlo
___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:04:56AM +0100, Joseph Reeves wrote:
>SHR + 2.6.31 + BFS + OpenWRT drivers = win?
Would appear that way if someone had the time and environment;
I really loved the Android stuff on Twitter :)
--
mjt
___
Openmoko community ma
SHR + 2.6.31 + BFS + OpenWRT drivers = win?
2009/9/8 Laszlo KREKACS :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> wrote:
>> http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/3836404163
>> One last thing.. you know the lag you get when your phone rings and it
>> doesn't display right away? Ye
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/3836404163
> One last thing.. you know the lag you get when your phone rings and it
> doesn't display right away? Yeah thats gone now.
On a wl500 router the performance hit is 1.5 time faster;)
ht
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:50:43AM +0300, Markus T�rnqvist wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 03:27:13PM +0100, Joseph Reeves wrote:
> >> Now for someone to find the time to try this ;-)
> >
> >I applied the latest BFS patch to the andy-tracking branch of the
> >kernel but it wouldn't build - proba
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 03:27:13PM +0100, Joseph Reeves wrote:
>> Now for someone to find the time to try this ;-)
>
>I applied the latest BFS patch to the andy-tracking branch of the
>kernel but it wouldn't build - probably an indication of my noob
>kernel skills rather than the applicability of t
hile trying -
> just to see if it makes any difference at all.
> Â Now for someone to find the time to try this ;-)
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/Interesting-Linux-development-for-lower-resources-machines-from-Con-Kolivas-tp3566462p3567588.html
> Sent
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Niels Heyvaert wrote:
> Because it's designed in such a way that mainline would never be interested
> in adopting it, which is how I like it.
I think in Solaris the sheduler are pluggable. Ie, it can be swapped.
In linux its hardwired, and there is no will to chan
find the time to try this ;-)
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/Interesting-Linux-development-for-lower-resources-machines-from-Con-Kolivas-tp3566462p3567588.html
Sent from the Openmoko Community mailing list archive at Nabble.com
>>>Reading the FAQ text and reactions on LWN it appears to me that the author
>>>has no intention whatsoever to merge this into the mainline kernel tree...
>
> BEcause his precedent work was not merged for years?
> I would not expect to be merged either ...
>
> I dont think he would opposed the m
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:01:46PM +, Niels Heyvaert wrote:
>>Reading the FAQ text and reactions on LWN it appears to me that the author
>>has no intention whatsoever to merge this into the mainline kernel tree...
BEcause his precedent work was not merged for years?
I would not expect to be
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:01:46PM +, Niels Heyvaert wrote:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/350100/
>
>Reading the FAQ text and reactions on LWN it appears to me that the author
>has no intention whatsoever to merge this into the mainline kernel tree...
But aren't there "vendor" kernels for the mo
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/350100/
>
> Con Kolivas, who worked on desktop interactivity issues in the past before
> storming off in 2007, has posted a new scheduler called BFS. "It was
> designed to be forward looking only, make the most of lower spec machines,
> and not scale to massive hardware
http://lwn.net/Articles/350100/
Con Kolivas, who worked on desktop interactivity issues in the past before
storming off in 2007, has posted a new scheduler called BFS. "It was
designed to be forward looking only, make the most of lower spec machines,
and not scale to massive hardware. ie it is a d
http://lwn.net/Articles/350100/
Con Kolivas, who worked on desktop interactivity issues in the past before
storming off in 2007, has posted a new scheduler called BFS. "It was
designed to be forward looking only, make the most of lower spec machines,
and not scale to massive hardware. ie it is a d
21 matches
Mail list logo
