6 Mar
2009
6 Mar
'09
10:40 p.m.
ron minnich wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
cpu_phase1 and cpu_phase 6 (for example)
Please call it cpu_phase2 instead. Then:
are you sure? this is cpu code in stage2, phase1. Why phase2?
cpu_phase1 and cpu_phase2 was my idea. If they are indeed running completely independent of other stage2_phases. Maybe I misunderstood?
//Peter