 | | RFC: smaller task scheduler —Joseph Woolley
|
| | | I have been working on some changes to the task scheduler (and therefore execi, kill, killall) and have reduced the size/complexity a bit. I think it is ready for use (although I am going to continue to test it). Here is a bit of info. about it: (...) (23 years ago, 25-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler —Stephen M. Moraco
|
| | | | In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) This is exciting... <snip> (...) Good work on this! Since you have the config and simple swap we'll need to prove that both versions are still working and I'd like a 2nd opinion (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler —Joseph Woolley
|
| | | | "Stephen M Moraco" <stephen_moraco@agilent.com> wrote in message news:GtKIM4.Gws@lugnet.com... (...) <snip> (...) Sounds good. Now, who would like to provide a second opinion? BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler —Joseph Woolley
|
| | | | In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Ok, so I was wrong about this. I double checked the standard task scheduler, and sure enough, it cycles through the high priority tasks, until all are P_WAITING, then moves (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
