Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.

Linus Torvalds wrote:

-	schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1);
+	schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 0);

Is there any real reason for this?

I think that patch is bogus. Either it should stay at 1, or the whole work should be a non-scheduled one instead.

Do we really need to handle it asap for the console, or is it ok to wait for the next tick, like the regular tty case used to?

And if we need to handle it asap, why the "delayed"?

The scheduling is to move the processing out of interrupt context.
The receive data is often extracted from the hardware
at interrupt time and then queued for processing.

--
Paul Fulghum
Microgate Systems, Ltd.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
    • From: James Simmons <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]