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    [W:0.046 / U:29.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site