Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:17:34 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering |
| |
Albert Cahalan wrote: > Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might > they better be done like the task state? SCHED_FIFO is > in fact already treated this way in one place. One might > want to test values this way: > > if(foo & (SCHED_ISO|SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) ... > > (leaving aside SCHED_OTHER==0, or just translate > that single value for the ABI) > > I'd like to see these get permenant allocations > soon, even if the code doesn't go into the kernel. > This is because user-space needs to know the values.
Excellent idea. The definition of rt_task() could become:
#define rt_task(p) ((p)->policy & (SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO))
instead of the highly dodgy:
#define rt_task(p) ((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO)
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |