Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:42:22 +0000 | From | P@draigBra ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Time sliced CFQ #2 |
| |
Robert Love wrote: >>The reason I proposed my ideas for tying the two values together is >>that I am >>concerned about breaking existing code. > > > Nothing should break. > > If apps don't explicitly set their i/o priority, then they get the > default. Not a big deal. > > This allows the default case to be the same as today. > > Robert Love
For reference, this was discussed last year: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106847268508985&w=2
-- Pádraig Brady - http://www.pixelbeat.org -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |