Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 20:03:53 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: Alexey Neyman <alex.neyman@auriga.ru> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: scheduler determination Message-ID: <20030526130353.GA47084@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <200305252220.26861.alex.neyman@auriga.ru> References: <20030525004855.GA67985@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030525083048.GA96007@regency.nsu.ru> <200305252220.26861.alex.neyman@auriga.ru>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 10:20:26PM +0400, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> Hi, there!
>
> On Sunday 25 May 2003 12:30, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> AD> Apart from what Jeff had already suggested, I think ``kern.scheduler''
> AD> is somewhat a better name. 8-)
>
> OTOH, the scheduler may have some more things to report. It may even have
> runtime tunables - they could be added later to this kern.sched.* namespace.
That is true; all that I'm saying is that that `name' part does not
sound nice to [my] ear. I tend to believe that ``kern.sched.{type,flavor,
whatever} serves us better since `name' does not really state anything
than just a plain "name", while generally one would want something more
fundamental for this type of identification IMHO.
./danfe
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030526130353.GA47084>