Freek wrote:
>>>I'll wait for version 1.3.0.
>>
>>Agreed. Anyway we can talk to unit-linux upstream to replace rml's code with
>>schedtool at some point, but I do not think it is of any importance since I
>>expect/believe there would be more userland code like these in the future.
>
>
> Just take
> > I'll wait for version 1.3.0.
> Agreed. Anyway we can talk to unit-linux upstream to replace rml's code with
> schedtool at some point, but I do not think it is of any importance since I
> expect/believe there would be more userland code like these in the future.
Just take 1.2.5, it is known to
On Saturday 03 September 2005 23:57, Janne Kujanpaa wrote:
--cut--
> > Personally I don't see much that schedtool offers over schedutils.
>
> SCHED_ISO, SCHED_BATCH and better documentation for program usage and
> new schedulers. Some people prefer vim and some other emacs.
Right. Also we have man
Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:07:06PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
>
>
>>>I was a bit too fast: it's RML, not Ingo, and sched-utils 1.5 now
>>>support some type of querying processes, but it's nowhere documented
>>>(I found out by fooling around with the options of chrt).
>
Ye
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:07:06PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > I was a bit too fast: it's RML, not Ingo, and sched-utils 1.5 now
> > support some type of querying processes, but it's nowhere documented
> > (I found out by fooling around with the options of chrt).
Personally I don't see much
5 matches
Mail list logo
