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.

-- 
Best regards,
Mindaugas
www.NetBSD.org