Re: [PATCH] preempt abstraction

[Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@norran.net>]

On Tuesday den 8 January 2002 21.52, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:57:28PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> > > Why not use the more commonly named conditional_schedule instead of
> > > preempt() ?  In addition to being more in-use (low-latency, lock-break,
> > > and Andrea's aa patch all use it) I think it better conveys its
> > > meaning, which is a schedule() but only conditionally.
> >
> > I think the choice is very subjective, but I prefer preempt().
> > It's nicely short to type (!) and similar in spirit to Ingo's yield()..
>
> naah.  preempt() means preempt.  But the implementation
> is in fact maybe_preempt(), or preempt_if_needed().
>

how about

  preemption_point();


A point of (possible) preemption...
It might be nice to add the orthogonal

  preempt_disable()
  preemtion_enable()

At the same time - see Robert Loves patch for places.
(mostly around CPU specific data)
But they should be null statements for now...

/RogerL

-- 
Roger Larsson
Skellefteå
Sweden