[cgl_discussion] Another potential errata: PRF.1.0

Fleischer, Julie N julie.n.fleischer at intel.com
Fri Jan 9 13:58:36 PST 2004

Eric pointed out to me that we may need an errata for PRF.1.0.  The
maturity is listed as "Experimental;" however, I thought our take was
that the O(1) scheduler and kernel pre-emption in the Linux kernel fully
complete this requirement.  In which case, it should be a maturity of
"Production."  (If it's not, then it's a "Top Issues" item, since what's
in the kernel wouldn't be ready for registration yet.)

Or, are we not doing errata on "Maturity" columns?

- Julie

**These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list