[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering
    Peter Williams wrote:

    > 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)

    Nothing wrong with that, is there?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.023 / U:4.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site