[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] preempt abstraction
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?

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.070 / U:3.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site