Re: #define NR_TASKS ??

To: debian-beowulf@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: #define NR_TASKS ??
From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@valinux.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:33:36 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010523133336.U11829@cistron.nl>
Mail-followup-to: debian-beowulf@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20010523163043.C23883@phi.kappa.beta>; from viral@debian.org on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:30:43PM +0530
References: <[🔎] 20010523163043.C23883@phi.kappa.beta>

Previously Viral wrote:
> For the time being I defined it to be 1024 (hoping thats large and safe) but
> whats the deal with NR_TASKS in 2.4.4 ? 

There is no NR_TASKS anymore, programs should just deal with the possibility
of an unlimited number of processes.

Wichert.

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /       Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool     \
| wichert@cistron.nl                  http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: #define NR_TASKS ??
  - From: Sven Rudolph <sr1@loom.sax.de>

References:
- #define NR_TASKS ??
  - From: Viral <viral@debian.org>

Prev by Date: #define NR_TASKS ??
Next by Date: Re: #define NR_TASKS ??
Previous by thread: #define NR_TASKS ??
Next by thread: Re: #define NR_TASKS ??
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread