Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Garance Drosehn <drosihn@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sparc64 kernel code question.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201251180.72391-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <97880ae040520123841ba954e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Garance Drosehn wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:24:11 +0200, Thomas Moestl <t.moestl@tu-bs.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2004/05/18 at 12:57:34 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > to answer question 2...
> > > nothing.. in my sources I renamed it to cpu_exit2()
> >
> > The name probably derives from the fact that it needs to be called
> > after the sched lock is obtained, as was mentioned in the commit
> > message.
but the naming conventions we use has 'sched' to mean that it is
related to the scheduler. Probably a scheduler specific callout, just
as 'cpu_' means a callout to a cpu-specific mechanism.
cpu_sched_ indicates that it is a per-cpu/per-scheduler special case
callout. in fac tit is not it is prely for sparc64 use and it is in exit
so cpu_exit_{something} would be in order.. We also have historical
examples of using mumbble() and mumble2() when a function needs to be
called in 2 parts due to some external requirement,
so cpu_exit() and cpu_exit2() would be the names by my logic..
certainly _sched_ is wrong..
>
> Maybe call it: cpu_exit_postsched()
> :-)
it is not post_sched
maybe
cpu_exit_locked()
would be more descriptive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201251180.72391-100000>