From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the
	Linux-kernel]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:29:03 +0200
Message-ID: <20100426182903.GA14542@8bytes.org>
References: <20100426115658.GA21346@cs.fsu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: raj@ece.cmu.edu, jayhawk@soe.ucsc.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
	raistlin@linux.it, niehaus@ittc.ku.edu, henrik@austad.us,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	billh@gnuppy.monkey.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
	fabio@gandalf.sssup.it, anderson@cs.unc.edu, tglx@linutronix.de,
	dhaval.giani@gmail.com, cucinotta@sssup.it, lipari@retis.sssup.it,
	baker.tlh@comcast.net
To: Ted Baker <baker@cs.fsu.edu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100426115658.GA21346@cs.fsu.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:56:58AM -0400, Ted Baker wrote:
> I have not seen any more e-mail on this.  How is it going?  Is there any
> chance of rolling in some corrections for the SCHED_SPORADIC treatment?  In
> particular, could we have a DO_NOT_RUN priority, that is guaranteed to
> prevent a task from running at all?

Sorry for asking a maybe stupid question, but what is this good for and
what is the benefit over SIGSTOP?

	Joerg