[ Alan added to participants list, since he's in charge of tty code ]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, James Simmons wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> index de37ebc..34894e5 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tty_schedule_flip(struct tty_struct *tty)
> if (tty->buf.tail != NULL)
> tty->buf.tail->commit = tty->buf.tail->used;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
> - 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"?
Linus
-
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]
