> yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> > do you mean that there can be schedulers which don't enqueue the lwp
> > in sched_switch?  if so, can you give me an example?
> No.
> Essential point is that I don't think it is a good to _split_ enqueueing
> action by the _purpose_, because it is better to have the _rule_ in this case.

what's the rule?

you actually splitted enqueueing action by the purpose, didn't you?
ie. "enqueue as a part of sched_switch" and "enqueue for the rest".

> I am not sure if I understand your point... Do you think it's wrong?

i do not understand the point to make it a part of sched_switch.
implicit enqueue is confusing and should be avoided if possible, IMO.

YAMAMOTO Takashi