lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] preempt abstraction
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:2.888 / U:2.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site