Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Thomas Moestl <t.moestl@tu-bs.de> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 vm_machdep.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201300140.72391-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040520195617.GA2087@timesink.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.. If there is a cpu_exit() and a cpu_exit2() than one assumes that there would be a comment at cpu_exit2() explaining why it needs to be separate from cpu_exit(). cpu_sched_exit() just makes someone looking for scheduler components to get a false positive, and waste time staring at it trying to work out what the f*ck it has to do with the scheduler. cpu_exit_schedlocked() or something would be ok (if not to verbose) > > - Thomas > > -- > Thomas Moestl <t.moestl@tu-bs.de> http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0015675/ > <tmm@FreeBSD.org> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tmm/ > "I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal." > -- Calvin and Hobbes >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201300140.72391-100000>