[PATCH] manual: Explain sched_yield semantics with different schedulers

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> +A call to @code{sched_yield} does not guarantee that a different task
> +from the calling task is scheduled as a result; it depends on the
> +scheduling policy used on the target system.  It is possible that the
> +call may not result in any visible effect, i.e. the same task gets

Texinfo convention would use either "i.e.," with a comma or "i.e.@:" to 
avoid an end-of-sentence space after "i.e.".

> +scheduled again.
> +
> +For example on Linux systems, when a simple priority-based FIFO
> +scheduling policy (SCHED_FIFO) is in effect, the calling task is made

This should be @code{SCHED_FIFO}.

> +immediately ready to run (as oposed to running, which is what it was

"oposed" -> "opposed"

> +Another example could be a time slice based preemptive round-robin
> +policy, such as the SCHED_RR policy on Linux.  It is possible with this

@code{SCHED_RR}

> +policy that the calling task is scheduled again because it still has
> +time left in its slice.

OK with those Texinfo / typo fixes.

Reviewed-by: Joseph Myers <josmyers@redhat.com>

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
josmyers@redhat.com