lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: prev->has_cpu


    On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    >
    > The point is that we _always_ set prev->use_cpu to 0. So if we are not
    > going to switch_to() we' ll continue with current->use_cpu set to 0 and
    > we' ll have a still sleeping process with use_cpu set to 1.

    Umm??

    We always set prev->has_cpu to zero, and we always set next->has_cpu to
    one. That always works - even if next == prev, in which case it doesn't
    actually do anything. I don't see the problem: schedule() is always
    guaranteed to be entered with "current->has_cpu == 1" (because otherwise
    it couldn't have scheduled in the first place) and schedule() will always
    exit with "current->has_cpu" still set to one (except "current" can be
    different).

    I guess I still don't see what your worry is.

    Linus


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.021 / U:29.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site