Re: #define NR_TASKS ??
Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
And user-level shouldn't have used it anyway because running a kernel
with a higher NR_TASKS required recompiling top.
Sven Rudolph <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.sax.de/~sr1/