From 9d234f99f7ce1110a1c32a7c2765a83a741df8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Baldwin Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:55:51 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Axe a stale comment. Holding sched_lock across both setrunqueue() and mi_switch() is sufficient. --- sys/kern/subr_trap.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/sys/kern/subr_trap.c b/sys/kern/subr_trap.c index b74ac04571e..5d7edecdb67 100644 --- a/sys/kern/subr_trap.c +++ b/sys/kern/subr_trap.c @@ -82,14 +82,6 @@ userret(td, frame, oticks) mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock); kg->kg_pri.pri_level = kg->kg_pri.pri_user; if (ke->ke_flags & KEF_NEEDRESCHED) { - /* - * Since we are curproc, a clock interrupt could - * change our priority without changing run queues - * (the running process is not kept on a run queue). - * If this happened after we setrunqueue ourselves but - * before we switch()'ed, we might not be on the queue - * indicated by our priority. - */ DROP_GIANT_NOSWITCH(); setrunqueue(td); p->p_stats->p_ru.ru_nivcsw++; -- 2.45.2