Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:53:10 +0100 (CET) | | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | | Subject | Re: prev->has_cpu |
| |
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>Does this patch make sense or I have slept too little this night ;-)?
This should be the right patch.... *** linux/kernel/sched.c~ Fri Nov 13 11:37:39 1998 --- linux/kernel/sched.c Fri Nov 13 11:39:06 1998 *************** *** 604,620 **** } } - #ifdef __SMP__ - next->has_cpu = 1; - next->processor = this_cpu; - #endif - if (prev != next) { kstat.context_swtch++; get_mmu_context(next); switch_to(prev,next); } spin_unlock(&scheduler_lock);
/* --- 604,622 ---- } } if (prev != next) { kstat.context_swtch++; get_mmu_context(next); + #ifdef __SMP__ + next->processor = this_cpu; + #endif switch_to(prev,next); } + #ifdef __SMP__ + prev->has_cpu = 1; + #endif + spin_unlock(&scheduler_lock);
/*
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |