On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 14:52 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/05/2024 1:36 pm, Leigh Brown wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 2024-05-14 13:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
> > > > Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
> > > > works, it's
On 14/05/2024 1:36 pm, Leigh Brown wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2024-05-14 13:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
>>> Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
>>> works, it's annoying to see domains slightly out of order when
>>> sorting by cpu%.
On 2024-05-14 13:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
works, it's annoying to see domains slightly out of order when
sorting by cpu%.
Add a compare_dbl() function and update compare_cpu_pct() to
call it.
Hello,
On 2024-05-14 13:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
works, it's annoying to see domains slightly out of order when
sorting by cpu%.
Add a compare_dbl() function and update compare_cpu_pct() to
On 14.05.2024 14:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
>> Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
>> works, it's annoying to see domains slightly out of order when
>> sorting by cpu%.
>>
>> Add a compare_dbl() function and update
On 14/05/2024 9:13 am, Leigh Brown wrote:
> Although using integer comparison to compare doubles kind of
> works, it's annoying to see domains slightly out of order when
> sorting by cpu%.
>
> Add a compare_dbl() function and update compare_cpu_pct() to
> call it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leigh Brown
>
