Talk:Priority inversion

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Just an observation. I followed the link to the Mars expedition to find out more on this example of priority inversion. I didn't find anything in the body of the text that suggested obvious priority inversion; the text essentially says 'probably the battery ran out and it froze'. It just occurs to me to check the references on *this* article, as maybe this will explain more. But it would be nice to have a smoother linkage to this interesting and prominently featured example. Jebbo 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there was an External link regarding this. I've edited the page to point users to the link. I'm not sure if it is proper style to point people to External links, so feel to revert if this inappropriate. I just figured "be bold"... Jebbo 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second-to-last paragraph of this article, about priority ceilings, should be expanded to include better explanation for non-technical readers. 68.50.203.109 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the solutions for better readability, this also makes the link to the priority ceiling article more visible. Vinsci 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "disputed"

Since the statement about priority inversion on Mars Pathfinder is verified and the priority ceiling link is clarified, I will now remove the Disputed mark on this article.

Very well written article - Thanks!

Concise and too the point. Thanks so much! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "priority inversion" at all

If there was a "priority inversion", an inversion in the priority, then we could complain why the task of lower priority has the better oppuritniy to be alive.

The reason why the researchers do not find right solutions for the problem is that they use a bad terminology in for the fenomenon in question.

And hence they chase solutions in the scope marked by the wrong terminology.

Since wiki is declared to be a non-research project, therefore there is no solution for this stupid situation concerning the article in question.

However I think it would be nice to warn the kind reader that the terminology used by the experts and hence the situation analysis are wrong.

prohlep (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]