From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267571AbUHEG4q (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:56:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267578AbUHEG4q (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:56:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:39822 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267571AbUHEG4p (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:56:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:57:08 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Albert Cahalan Cc: linux-kernel mailing list , kernel@kolivas.org, Andrew Morton OSDL Subject: Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering Message-ID: <20040805065708.GA10124@elte.hu> References: <1091638227.1232.1750.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1091638227.1232.1750.camel@cube> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Albert Cahalan wrote: > Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might they better be > done like the task state? [...] this is quite unnecessary at the moment since p->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO is a good enough check - but whenever the way p->prio works is changed it will be easy to introduce a PF_REALTIME flag that is set/cleared in setscheduler(). (instead of playing around with p->policy.) Ingo