> 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.

can you explain how the separation is scheduler dependent?
i'm not happy with putting more knowledge about idle lwps into schedulers
unnecessarily.

YAMAMOTO Takashi