Subject:
|
Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:35:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2531 times
|
| |
|
|
Joel,
I had planned on another post to provide a link to the code sample, but have
run very short on time. I will try to get that up soon.
I believe the sensor handling issue is a real issue. However, I have yet to
see a simple solution that everyone can agree on. Personally, I have never
had a problem with missing sensor events. I can see how it could become a
problem with more complex software though.
More questions than answers... that is for sure.
// Joe
Also, you may be interested in the "WaitForMultipleEvents" implementation
that I did. I found it quite useful, to be able to wait for a button press
or sensor event, but also be able to time out, etc... I will try to get
these code samples up on my web site soon.
"Joel Uddén" <afroo@ul.shacknet.nu> wrote in message
news:Gxxwnz.1Hq@lugnet.com...
> 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 about proportional timeslicing? Is
> it really necessary?
>
> Once again I wonder about the progress of the sensor handling rewriting. I
> think this would be the most important change for the new version of • LegOS.
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
