[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:0.070 / U:1.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site