Confusing comment in reschedule_idle - unlock of runqueue.

• Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Swapping over NFS in Linux 2.4?"
• Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] pcmcia event thread. (fwd)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

This comment is written in head of reschedule_idle, is it really
correct?

--------------------------
/*
 * This is ugly, but reschedule_idle() is very timing-critical.
 * We enter with the runqueue spinlock held, but we might end
 * up unlocking it early, so the caller must not unlock the
 * runqueue, it's always done by reschedule_idle().
 *
 * This function must be inline as anything that saves and restores
 * flags has to do so within the same register window on sparc (Anton)
 */
static FASTCALL(void reschedule_idle(struct task_struct * p));

static void reschedule_idle(struct task_struct * p)
--------------------------

If it is then, wake_up_process and schedule_tail are wrong.
But I think not...

--------------------------
        reschedule_idle(p);
out:
        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&runqueue_lock, flags);
--------------------------

/RogerL

-- 
Home page:
  http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Swapping over NFS in Linux 2.4?"
• Previous message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] pcmcia event thread. (fwd)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:11 EST