On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 20:54, Marc Lehmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Registers don't need magic to stay "intact" (== have the same value), they > basically never change on their own, instructions must change them. There > are exceptions, but the point is true even then: registers don't change > due to magic, they change because a well-defined process changes them > somehow. > > A tasks witch will typically only change the registers it needs to > switch. For example, both MMU and FPU registers are only changed on demand > on Linux, on architectures that allow that.
That's better. Your original statement was way too overarching. An unwitting reader could come away with the wrong idea. It needed to be called out. >> Re: task switch vs. context switch: I'm using linux kernel >> nomenclature because it's (IMO) more precise than the overloaded >> concept of a context switch. I know you've posted to the LKML once or >> twice so I assume you have a basic grasp of the kernel's internals. > > Maybe you shouldn't use nomenclature that you don't understand well enough > though. I doubt you know what a task switch does in Linux, so why don't I believe I know the nomenclature well enough because I know the kernel well enough. To wit, my first contribution was in 1997. What about you? _______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
