> yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> > > I may be wrong, but...
> > > In such case you would declare two states - "enqueue for yielding" and
> > > "enqueue for the rest", which would be for specific scheduler internals.
> > > As an abstraction, dispatcher should not know about such transitions, it
> > > should only know that it could - enqueue or dequeue.
> > 
> > do you mean, while some specific schedulers need to know the purpose of
> > enqueue, they should not be told it explicitly?
> Yes. Just I am looking from other side - dispatcher should not "think" that
> scheduler needs a purpose.

it sounds like a word game to me.  whatever you call it,
"enqueue for yielding" or "enqueue as a part of sched_switch",
you made dispatcher know the purpose of enqueue, didn't you?

YAMAMOTO Takashi