> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> You misunderstand.
>
> If the "delay" is zero, then why are you using "delayed" workqueues at
> all?
>
> A delay of zero tends to be pointless. It's not a delay at all, and you
> could just use the regular NON-DELAYING workqueues.
Because sometimes you do want the delay. In other parts of the tty
code we do delay. What should be done is
if (tty->low_latency)
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work);
else
schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1);
Is this acceptable to you?
-
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]