On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 03:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > /*
> > - * Priority of a process goes from 0 to 139. The 0-99
> > - * priority range is allocated to RT tasks, the 100-139
> > - * range is for SCHED_OTHER tasks. Priority values are
> > - * inverted: lower p->prio value means higher priority.
> > + * Priority of a process goes from 0 to MAX_PRIO-1. The
> > + * 0 to MAX_RT_PRIO-1 priority range is allocated to RT tasks,
> > + * the MAX_RT_PRIO to MAX_PRIO range is for SCHED_OTHER tasks.
> > + * Priority values are inverted: lower p->prio value means higher
> > + * priority.
>
> this i dont agree with either. The point of comments is easy
> understanding, so i intentionally kept the 'hard' constants and i'm
> updating them constantly - it's much easier to understand how things
> happen if it does not happen via a define. The code itself i agree should
> stay abstract, but the comments should stay as humanly readable as
> possible.
Now that I am working on the configurable maximum RT value patch, I see
why I did this: we can't hardcode the values like "0 to 99" because that
99 is set now via a compile-time define. Even if it defaults to 100, it
can be a range of values so the comments should be specific and give the
exact define.
That is why I did it in the invariant patch, anyhow - and I think it
makes the most sense to do it in this patch.
Robert Love
-
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 Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:36 EST