Subject: re: Moving scheduler semantics from cpu_switch() to kern_synch.c
To: tech-kern@netbsd.org, Matt Thomas <matt@3am-software.com>
From: matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/20/2006 05:27:11 
   
   Instead cpu_idle() should I think we should add a member to cpu_info
   which indicates cpu_idle should continue to loop.  When nonzero, it
   represents that there may be a new lwp to be run.


why can't this just use sched_whichqs instead of a new member?