[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Change in process.c
From: |
Nick Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: Change in process.c |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:09:03 +1200 |
> > Can't the reason for the change be summarised in situ?
>
> it is summarized: "or some reason, this sleep() prevents Emacs from
> sending loadavg to 5-8(!) for ~10 seconds".
> 40 messages of various conjectures, claims, counterclaims, rebuttals &c
> are long but of dubious value inside the source code.
If we don't understand why a change works then I'm not sure that it's the
right fix.
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
- Change in process.c, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/26
- Re: Change in process.c, Sam Steingold, 2007/03/26
- Re: Change in process.c, Andreas Schwab, 2007/03/27
- Re: Change in process.c, Nick Roberts, 2007/03/27
- Re: Change in process.c, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/27
- Re: Change in process.c, Chong Yidong, 2007/03/27
- Re: Change in process.c, Nick Roberts, 2007/03/27
- Re: Change in process.c, Sam Steingold, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c,
Nick Roberts <=
- Re: Change in process.c, Sam Steingold, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Andreas Schwab, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Sam Steingold, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Jan Djärv, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Kim F. Storm, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Jan Djärv, 2007/03/29
- Re: Change in process.c, Kim F. Storm, 2007/03/29
- Re: Change in process.c, Chong Yidong, 2007/03/28
- Re: Change in process.c, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/28
Re: Change in process.c, Randal L. Schwartz, 2007/03/29