Re: 2.4.19-preX: What we really need: -AA patches finally in the tree

[Sean Hunter]

Excuse my stupidity, but would a patch that just adds Davide's macro and
changes all instances of 

current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;
schedule();

to yield() be acceptable?  Is there more involved than that, because I am
perfectly happy to create and submit such a patch.

...or am I just being dumb?

Sean

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 07:43:57PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > Not at all. The yield() function would just be a define to
> > the code which no longer works with the new scheduler, ie:
> >
> > #define yield()				\
> > 	current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;	\
> > 	schedule();
> 
> or better :
> 
> #define yield() \
> 	do { \
> 		current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; \
> 		schedule(); \
> 	} while (0)
> 
> 
> 
> - Davide
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>