Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ccvaxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: nice(1) takes an absolute priority a Message-ID: <47500003@ccvaxa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 11:09:00 EST Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.47500003 Posted: Thu Dec 6 11:09:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:19:22 EST References: <243@utcs.UUCP> Lines: 20 Nf-ID: #R:utcs:-24300:ccvaxa:47500003:000:871 Nf-From: ccvaxa!preece Dec 6 10:09:00 1984 > My fix was to use nice(3c) instead of the overkill of getpriority(2). > Diffs follow: ------------- Two things bother me about this statement. Shouldn't we really be trying to avoid calls to compatibility routines? Just because Berkeley didn't bother to remove all their own uses of them, shouldn't we try not to introduce any more? Well, I try, anyway. In what sense is using getpriority "overkill"? You must mean that using it is more work for YOU, since it's noticeably less work for the machine. If you use nice(3c) you add another call and then do, inside it, the getpriority call you could have done yourself. And whoever reads your code has to try to remember whether that old nice call was relative or absolute. If you just used getpriority and setpriority it would at least be clear exactly what you were doing. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece