Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering
From: Peter Williams
Date: Wed Aug 04 2004 - 20:18:51 EST
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might
they better be done like the task state? SCHED_FIFO is
in fact already treated this way in one place. One might
want to test values this way:
if(foo & (SCHED_ISO|SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) ...
(leaving aside SCHED_OTHER==0, or just translate
that single value for the ABI)
I'd like to see these get permenant allocations
soon, even if the code doesn't go into the kernel.
This is because user-space needs to know the values.
Excellent idea. The definition of rt_task() could become:
#define rt_task(p) ((p)->policy & (SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO))
instead of the highly dodgy:
#define rt_task(p) ((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO)
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/