On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0600, Maynard Johnson wrote: > I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet. This > Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development > to support profiling SPUs. When the scheduler patch gets applied to a > kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't > see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.
I'll hopefull commit these patches this weekend, I'm at a conference currently so not really able to do a lot of work. If you need to make more progress until than just apply the hunk that introduces sched_flags before doing your patch. > Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier > ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem. They should have been > removed. They're gone now. Ok. > I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify > from being static to non-static. I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this > question before going ahead and making such a change. There is no difference in impact between marking a function non-static and adding a trivial wrapper around it, only that the latter creates more bloat. So I don't think there's a good argument against this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
