From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 21 07:07:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E4F16A4D0 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B165143D39 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 11212 invoked from network); 21 May 2004 14:06:40 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 21 May 2004 14:06:40 -0000 Received: from 10.50.40.205 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4LE6aoU076796; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:06:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Julian Elischer Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:07:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405211007.06100.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Thomas Moestl cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 vm_machdep.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:07:02 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org