Logic bug in 2.6.12 conservative cpufreq governor?

[Kevin Radloff]

The conservative cpufreq governor's "ignore_nice" sysfs parameter is
reversed from what I would expect:

% cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/conservative/ignore_nice
1

.. While it's not ignoring nice'd processes. Changing it to 0 causes
it to ignore them. That would seem to make sense only if it's supposed
to mean "ignore niceness of processes" vs "ignore nice'd processes"...
Is that so?

If it is, then wouldn't the name make more sense as "ignore_niceness"
or something equally less ambiguous? :)

Please CC me as I'm not on the list.

-- 
Kevin 'radsaq' Radloff
radsaq@xxxxxxxxx
http://saqataq.us/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/