Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 vm_machdep.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405211229360.72391-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200405211007.06100.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 21 May 2004, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 20 May 2004 04:04 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Thu, 20 May 2004, Thomas Moestl wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004/05/20 at 11:48:19 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > While you are there, can you rename it to cpu_exit2() > > > > as it has nothing to do with the scheduler.. > > > > > > As I mentioned previously, the connection is that this function must > > > be called with sched_lock held (and it must be held until the final > > > cpu_throw() after that). It does tasks that have a connection to > > > thread switching, so the name is not really inappropriate. > > > > > > cpu_exit2 is far less descriptive as a name. > > > > but less misleading than cpu_sched_sxit() > > > > switching is nothing to do with the scheduler.. > > Uh, switching between threads is all the scheduler does. cpu_exit2() is a > horrible name. One question for Thomas, can the sparc64 cpu_switch() and/or jeff's scheduler interface leaves the switch code out of the scheduler interface.. The scheduler decides who to run but the switch code actually does it and is scheduler independent.. > cpu_throw() just call this function directly to avoid having exit1 > ()/thread_exit()/whoever know about it? not a bad idea. > > -- > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0405211229360.72391-100000>