Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering

Nick Piggin
2004-08-05T01:34:05Z

Peter Williams wrote:

> 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)
>

Nothing wrong with that, is there?