I have seen that comments, too. And more comments at: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/26/62. One wired thing is that I can not discover the recursive twice call to cond_resched() in the code mentioned by both places. Could any one help out point out it? Thanks a lot. 2007/2/22, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi... I think I made mistake... I see comments like this: *//*/*/* The BKS might be reacquired before we have dropped/* */ PREEMPT_ACTIVE, which could trigger a second/* */* cond_resched() call.*//* I don't know what BKS is, maybe it means BKL. In that case, without looking into the actual codes, I guess while BKL is reacquired, it implicitly call cond_resched(). That's the 2nd "hidden" cond_resched. I hope I do it correctly this time. regards, Mulyadi
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
