Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering

[Peter Williams]

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)

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/