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 January 8, 2002 10:25 pm, Roger Larsson wrote:
> 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's not, it's a point of possible rescheduling. With that in mind I'd
suggest... [drum roll]... [drum roll]...

schedule_point();

--
Daniel
-
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