Re: kapm-idled : is this a bug?

From: Igmar Palsenberg (maillist@chello.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 22 2000 - 13:45:32 EST


> > Agree that it is different. But it confuses people to have two
> > idle-tasks. I suggest that we throw it one big pile, unless having a
> > separate apm idle task has a purpose.
>
> You can't do that. Doing it this way is _way_ better for system
> stability, because kidle-apmd sometimes dies due to APM
> bug. kidle-apmd dying is recoverable error; swapper dieing is as fatal
> as it can be.

Hmm.. Means two idle task then :)

        Igmar

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST