Subject: Re: sobj_changepri (Re: CVS commit: [newlock2] src/sys)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 02/23/2007 12:37:10
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:13:29PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > - Change syncobj_t::sobj_changepri() to alter both the user priority and
> > > > the effective priority of LWPs. How the effective priority is adjusted
> > > > depends on the type of object.
> > >
> > > i'm not sure if it was a good idea.
> > > priority inheritance needs a way to change the effective priority only.
> > At the time, it seemed like a reasonable accommodation to make so we can
> > handle the different behaviour of tsleep and condition variables. I figured
> > we would need another method like sobj_lendpri later on. If you can see a
> > better way of doing it, please change it.
> after some more thoughts, i've changed my mind.
> it's cleaner to use another dedicated priority member in struct lwp.
> (see the attached patch.)
i like the name _lendpri. i'll rename _inheritpri in the patch to it.
btw, do you care if i remove mutex_owner(), which seems unused?
(see "XXX naming conflict" in the patch.)