Messages in this thread | | | From | Roger Larsson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] preempt abstraction | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:25:20 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday den 8 January 2002 21.52, Andrew Morton wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:57:28PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > > > Why not use the more commonly named conditional_schedule instead of > > > preempt() ? In addition to being more in-use (low-latency, lock-break, > > > and Andrea's aa patch all use it) I think it better conveys its > > > meaning, which is a schedule() but only conditionally. > > > > I think the choice is very subjective, but I prefer preempt(). > > It's nicely short to type (!) and similar in spirit to Ingo's yield().. > > naah. preempt() means preempt. But the implementation > is in fact maybe_preempt(), or preempt_if_needed(). >
how about
preemption_point();
A point of (possible) preemption... It might be nice to add the orthogonal
preempt_disable() preemtion_enable()
At the same time - see Robert Loves patch for places. (mostly around CPU specific data) But they should be null statements for now...
/RogerL
-- Roger Larsson Skellefteå Sweden - 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/
| |