On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Andrew R. Reiter wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > > : > :Here are two small patches they are pretty non-controversial in my > :opinion. > : > :they are part of a bigger patch, but I'd like to get them in separatly > :to simplify the bigger one. > :the first patch: > :http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/IDLETD.diff > :moves the flag that identifies a thread as being one of the idle threads > :from the KSE to the thread. The code that wants to know already > :has a thread pointer, but not the KSE pointer so this makes more sense. > > Is this correct? > > Index: sys/proc.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /repos/projects/mirrored/freebsd/src/sys/sys/proc.h,v > retrieving revision 1.313 > diff -u -r1.313 proc.h > --- sys/proc.h 2003/04/13 21:29:11 1.313 > +++ sys/proc.h 2003/04/17 22:52:07 > _at__at_ -349,6 +323,7 _at__at_ > #define TDF_CAN_UNBIND 0x000004 /* Only temporarily bound. */ > #define TDF_SINTR 0x000008 /* Sleep is interruptible. */ > #define TDF_TIMEOUT 0x000010 /* Timing out during sleep. */ > +#define TDF_IDLETD 0x000040 /* This is an idle thread */ > #define TDF_SELECT 0x000040 /* Selecting; wakeup/waiting > danger. */ > #define TDF_CVWAITQ 0x000080 /* Thread is on a cv_waitq (not > slpq). */ > #define TDF_UPCALLING 0x000100 /* This thread is doing an > upcall. */ > > > Both TDF_IDLETD and TD_SELECT have the same value. uh, no, TDF_IDLETD should be 0x20 I copied that line by hand from my test system because the diff from there is different (there are more changes frm which this was extracted) and flubbed it.. good catch. (That's why we do reviews right?) :-) > > Just curious. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > : > : > :The second patch: > :http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/sched_clock.diff > :makes the sched_ API entrypoint sched_clock() > :take a thread argument instead of a KSE. > :Once again, the callers have the thread pointer and not the KSE pointer, > :and in fact they probably should not have the KSE pointer. > : > : > :anyone object to these patches? > : > : > :_______________________________________________ > :freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > :http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > :To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" > : > > -- > Andrew R. Reiter > arr_at_watson.org > arr_at_FreeBSD.org >Received on Thu Apr 17 2003 - 15:19:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:03 UTC