yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> i prefer to have separate calls for separate operations.
> ie. "enqueue for yielding" and then sched_nextlwp().
What is the negative point, except the incorrect name, of current variant?
I am not sure what is the benefit of adding such additional things, except
"yet another function in API". Of course, it could be structurization and
abstraction, but in this case such separation would be more scheduler
dependent, rather than generic, thought.
But lets wait more comments for objectivity :)

> do you have any specific use of b)?
Currently - not. I would be OK with variant A, just do not know the reason
against B. In such equal case, I would chose that one, which is more flexible.

> just FYI: i changed userland-visible values of p_estcpu while ago
> and haven't heard any problems about it since then.
It would be good to know more details about your change.

-- 
Best regards,
Mindaugas
www.NetBSD.org