Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:36:00 +0000 | From | Sean Hunter <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.19-preX: What we really need: -AA patches finally in the tree |
| |
Excuse my stupidity, but would a patch that just adds Davide's macro and changes all instances of
current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; schedule();
to yield() be acceptable? Is there more involved than that, because I am perfectly happy to create and submit such a patch.
...or am I just being dumb?
Sean
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 07:43:57PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Not at all. The yield() function would just be a define to > > the code which no longer works with the new scheduler, ie: > > > > #define yield() \ > > current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; \ > > schedule(); > > or better : > > #define yield() \ > do { \ > current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; \ > schedule(); \ > } while (0) > > > > - Davide > > > - > 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/ > - 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/
| |