lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] preempt abstraction
From
Date
On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 15:52, Andrew Morton wrote:

> naah. preempt() means preempt. But the implementation
> is in fact maybe_preempt(), or preempt_if_needed().

Agreed. preempt has me envision various things, none of which are what
we want. What is the difference between schedule vs preempt?
Confusing.

What we are calling preempt here is the same as schedule, but we check
if it is needed. So I suggest conditional_schedule, which has the
benefit of being widely used in at least three patches.
schedule_if_needed, sched_if_needed, etc. both fit. Why introduce the
namespace preempt when we already have sched?

sched_conditional() and sched_needed() ?

Robert Love

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans