Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
Surely you would call set_acceptable_latency() *before* running such
operation that requires the given latency? And that
set_acceptable_latency
would block the caller until all CPUs are set to wake within this
latency.
That would be the API semantics I would expect, anyway.
but that means it blocks, and thus can't be used in irq context
Is that a problem? I guess it could be, but you don't want to
give a false sense of security either. Having an explicit _nosync
version may make that clear?
(the usage model I imagine happens most is a set_acceptable_latency()
which can block during device init,
with either no or a very course limit, and a
modify_acceptable_latency(), which cannot block, from irq context or
device open)
OK. You'd know more about that than I ;)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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/
[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]
