From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267532AbUHEBRk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:17:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267537AbUHEBRk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:17:40 -0400 Received: from gizmo09ps.bigpond.com ([144.140.71.19]:6335 "HELO gizmo09ps.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S267532AbUHEBRi (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:17:38 -0400 Message-ID: <41118AAE.7090107@bigpond.net.au> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:17:34 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Albert Cahalan CC: linux-kernel mailing list , kernel@kolivas.org, Andrew Morton OSDL Subject: Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering References: <1091638227.1232.1750.camel@cube> In-Reply-To: <1091638227.1232.1750.camel@cube> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? SCHED_FIFO is > in fact already treated this way in one place. One might > want to test values this way: > > if(foo & (SCHED_ISO|SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) ... > > (leaving aside SCHED_OTHER==0, or just translate > that single value for the ABI) > > I'd like to see these get permenant allocations > soon, even if the code doesn't go into the kernel. > This is because user-space needs to know the values. Excellent idea. The definition of rt_task() could become: #define rt_task(p) ((p)->policy & (SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) instead of the highly dodgy: #define rt_task(p) ((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO) Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce