On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM <bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ugh. Maybe we /do/ just give up and say that most people don't seem to > be using cfs_b in a way that expiration of the leftover 1ms matters. That was my conclusion as well. Does this mean you want to proceed with my patch set? Do you have any changes you want made to the proposed documentation changes, or any other changes for that matter?
