Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:07:06 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 vm_machdep.c Message-ID: <200405211007.06100.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201300140.72391-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405201300140.72391-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 cpu_throw() just call this function directly to avoid having exit1 ()/thread_exit()/whoever know about it? -- 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?200405211007.06100.jhb>