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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:14 EST