On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:20:01PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > @@ -57,31 +58,31 @@
> > void release_task(struct task_struct * p)
> > {
> > struct dentry *proc_dentry;
> > + task_t *leader;
> >
> > - if (p->state != TASK_ZOMBIE)
> > + if (p->state < TASK_ZOMBIE)
>
> Could you check TASK_ZOMBIE and TASK_DEAD explicitly, or add a comment
> in sched.h saying that only DEAD should be above ZOMBIE? Otherwise, if
> someone needs a new task state, this'll get out of sync.
A comment would be nice indeed.
I still have plans and (outdated) code for TASK_SWAPPED, since
I want Linux to be able to handle load spikes instead of spiralling
down thrashing ;)
cheers,
Rik
-- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org
- 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 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:23 EST