From 12c341b917921eb631026ec44a284c4d884e5de6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:52:20 +0100
Subject: IRC.

---
 open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

(limited to 'open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn')

diff --git a/open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn b/open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn
index 76788a53..e27d3018 100644
--- a/open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn
+++ b/open_issues/nice_vs_mach_thread_priorities.mdwn
@@ -373,3 +373,17 @@ here.
     <pochu> braunr: can't remember right now, either that or to fix a ftbfs in
       debian
     <youpi> iirc it's coreutils which wants proper nice levels
+
+
+# IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-03-04
+
+    <Steap> Is it not possible to set the priority of a process to 1 ?
+    <Steap> these macros:
+    <Steap> #define MACH_PRIORITY_TO_NICE(prio) (2 * ((prio) - 12))
+    <Steap> #define NICE_TO_MACH_PRIORITY(nice) (12 + ((nice) / 2))
+    <Steap> are used in the setpriority() implementation of Hurd
+    <Steap> so setting a process' priority to 1 is just like setting it to 0
+    <youpi> Steap: that has already been discussed to drop the *2
+    <youpi> the issue is mach not supporting enough sched levels
+    <youpi> can be fixed, of course
+    <youpi> just nobody did yet
-- 
cgit v1.2.3