On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Fabrizio.
>
> Although parallel_schedule was a miss for this specific patch, however, I
> guess I seem to have missed out serial_schedule completely (in all patches)
> and then thanks for pointing this out. Subsequently Robert too noticed the
> miss at the serial_schedule end.
Why does serial_schedule even exist? Couldn't we just run the
parallel schedule serially, like what happens when MAX_CONNECTIONS=1?
Cheers,
Jeff