Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:14:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:13:57 -0500 Received: from mailc.telia.com ([194.22.190.4]:27659 "EHLO mailc.telia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:13:49 -0500 From: Roger Larsson Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:18:42 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Confusing comment in reschedule_idle - unlock of runqueue. MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111523184200.04121@dox> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, This comment is written in head of reschedule_idle, is it really correct? -------------------------- /* * This is ugly, but reschedule_idle() is very timing-critical. * We enter with the runqueue spinlock held, but we might end * up unlocking it early, so the caller must not unlock the * runqueue, it's always done by reschedule_idle(). * * This function must be inline as anything that saves and restores * flags has to do so within the same register window on sparc (Anton) */ static FASTCALL(void reschedule_idle(struct task_struct * p)); static void reschedule_idle(struct task_struct * p) -------------------------- If it is then, wake_up_process and schedule_tail are wrong. But I think not... -------------------------- reschedule_idle(p); out: spin_unlock_irqrestore(&runqueue_lock, flags); -------------------------- /RogerL -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/