From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sid-return-690-listarch-sid=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17683 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2003 17:28:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sid-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/sid/>
List-Post: <mailto:sid@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:sid-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17669 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2003 17:28:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2003 17:28:26 -0000
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (toenail.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.211])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D022B80040B; Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:fche@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h9LHSPIk020562;
	Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:28:25 -0400
Received: (from fche@localhost)
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9LHSPHp020560;
	Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:28:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:28:00 -0000
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
To: Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com>
Cc: sid@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] "active" pin of sid-sched
Message-ID: <20031021172825.GF19126@redhat.com>
References: <3F956986.6010803@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jousvV0MzM2p6OtC"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3F956986.6010803@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-q4/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2


--jousvV0MzM2p6OtC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-length: 300

Hi -

> This patch modifies the sid-sched compont so that it only drives its=20
> 'active' pin when the threshold from being active to inactive is=20
> crossed.=20

The existing ".recall()" check is already intended to do that, no?

> This is mainly an optimization.

Are you sure it helps?


- FChE

--jousvV0MzM2p6OtC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-length: 189

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/lWy5VZbdDOm/ZT0RAsElAJ99IKEm2OBAtyyT7w1OGsWAnc/nHQCgg7Es
HrxTfiH6gRuygxjaatAI9fg=
=nvJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jousvV0MzM2p6OtC--