Peter,
I tried to understand and applied all your suggestions, follows the
modification:
Adjustments: lock/unlock task in context_switch
Function prepare_lock_switch have an unused parameter, and also the
function name was not descriptive. To improve the readability and remove
the extra
Peter,
I tried to understand and applied all your suggestions, follows the
modification:
Adjustments: lock/unlock task in context_switch
Function prepare_lock_switch have an unused parameter, and also the
function name was not descriptive. To improve the readability and remove
the extra
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:50:19PM -0200, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> > > much everything else is completely wrong :-)
> > >
> > > That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> > > not
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:50:19PM -0200, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > > Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> > > much everything else is completely wrong :-)
> > >
> > > That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> > > not
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:50:19PM -0200, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> > much everything else is completely wrong :-)
> >
> > That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> > not descriptive of what
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:50:19PM -0200, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
> > Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> > much everything else is completely wrong :-)
> >
> > That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> > not descriptive of what
> Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> much everything else is completely wrong :-)
>
> That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> not descriptive of what the function does and the comment is just plain
> wrong.
>
> Also, since
> Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty
> much everything else is completely wrong :-)
>
> That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is
> not descriptive of what the function does and the comment is just plain
> wrong.
>
> Also, since
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:02:00PM -0200, rodrigosiqueira wrote:
> The first parameter of prepare_lock_switch (kernel/sched/sched.h) is not
> used anymore. Commit c55f5158f removed the code that use the first
> parameter and function prepare_lock_switch is only used in
> prepare_task_switch
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:02:00PM -0200, rodrigosiqueira wrote:
> The first parameter of prepare_lock_switch (kernel/sched/sched.h) is not
> used anymore. Commit c55f5158f removed the code that use the first
> parameter and function prepare_lock_switch is only used in
> prepare_task_switch
The first parameter of prepare_lock_switch (kernel/sched/sched.h) is not
used anymore. Commit c55f5158f removed the code that use the first
parameter and function prepare_lock_switch is only used in
prepare_task_switch (kernel/sched/core.c)
I tested it in a virtual machine running Debian x86_64
The first parameter of prepare_lock_switch (kernel/sched/sched.h) is not
used anymore. Commit c55f5158f removed the code that use the first
parameter and function prepare_lock_switch is only used in
prepare_task_switch (kernel/sched/core.c)
I tested it in a virtual machine running Debian x86_64
12 matches
Mail list logo
