libc_r silliness

[Daniel Eischen]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> 
> On 08-Jul-2003 Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > Actually, <sched.h> is marked PS, not TPS, and the text of
> > the page talks about "process":
> > 
> >   Each process is controlled by an associated scheduling policy
> >   and priority. Associated with each policy is a priority range.
> >   Each policy definition specifies the minimum priority range for
> >   that policy. The priority ranges for each policy may overlap
> >   the priority ranges of other policies.
> > 
> > Regardless, we have kernel scheduling parameters _and_ thread
> > scheduling parameters.  From my interpretation, these interfaces
> > refer to the process scheduling, not thread scheduling.
> > This is a good link too:
> > 
> >   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#tag_02_08_04_01
> > 
> >   Each process shall be controlled by an associated scheduling policy
> >   and priority. These parameters may be specified by explicit
> >   application execution of the sched_setscheduler() or
> >   sched_setparam() functions.
> > 
> >   Each thread shall be controlled by an associated scheduling policy
> >   and priority. These parameters may be specified by explicit
> >   application execution of the pthread_setschedparam() function.
> 
> So is X/Open OSI whoever just assuming that the process and thread
> scheduling policies implement identical priority ranges?

I dunno, but it seems that is the case.

We could add pthread_get_priority_{min,max}_np(int policy) as
non-portable functions.

-- 
Dan Eischen