Re: [PATCH] preempt abstraction

From: Christoph Hellwig (hch@caldera.de)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 13:59:21 EST


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()..

        Christoph

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:23 EST