> Because that requires that every user of "set_task_state()" needs to know
> about preemption.
Hm, how so? I contend not to rudely set the task state but instead mark
the task as "preempted" in preempt_schedule and handle this case in
schedule.
It requires zero change to anything else; this is the behavior of the
original patch I sent you.
> Btw, I think entry.S should just call preempt_schedule() instead, instead
> of knowing about these details.
Agreed.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/