Re: [PATCH] preempt abstraction

[Daniel Phillips]

On January 8, 2002 10:25 pm, Roger Larsson wrote:
> 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's not, it's a point of possible rescheduling.  With that in mind I'd
suggest... [drum roll]... [drum roll]...

    schedule_point();

--
Daniel