>that might be all well and good, but i believe you still dont understand
>my point: for yield_to() to work the target task _needs to be running_.
correct, i did not understand. perhaps Con didn't either. my idea was
related to:
>in theory it would be possible to add two new syscalls: sys_suspend()
>and sys_wakeup(tid), where suspend would just enter TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
but more like:
sys_suspend_and_wake (tid)
where current enters TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, and process_wakeup() is
called on tid.
>having this API on 2.4 kernels. But it would have one big advantage: it
>would be evidently and trivially RT-safe :-)
no small advantage.
it has another big advantage from the user space perspective: no other
information is required apart from <tid>. no state needs to be
maintained by the system that uses this. thats a huge win over the
baroque collection of FIFOs (or futexes) that we have to look after now.
--p
-
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/
