 | | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Joe I think proportional timeslicing would be a nice thing if the implementation would be efficient and straightforward. I don't consider my patch to be that. Would still be nice to see a snippet of your code. How do the other kernel developers feel (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Linux, Cygwin, DJGPP: what is it all about?
|
|
What exactly needs to be done to 'upgrade' DJGPP to work with the new LegOS? Are these same changes required for cygwin? I assume the 'unix' part of this is done by the "LegOS Team", which means it works with Cygwin, but now someone (like Ed) needs (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Linux, Cygwin, DJGPP: what is it all about?
|
|
(...) I don't expect too many people to find it. It has been removed from legOS homepage and I had to dig into some archives for the link. (...) TRUE, VERY TRUE! (...) I think the simple answer to this is "Windows users have two options Cygwin and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
I have found that using proportional timeslicing works great in many situations. It is more forgiving for new developers, since a "runaway" process will not block processes of lower priority. (runaway process used here to mean a process which never (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: *** Remainder: legOS new name poll ***
|
|
How many names have neen suggested? 1? 100? ... (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
