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    [W:0.028 / U:30.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site