James Simmons wrote:
Because sometimes you do want the delay. In other parts of the tty
code we do delay. What should be done is
Correct, so we must stick with the delayed work structure
which requires calling the delayed work function.
if (tty->low_latency)
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work);
else
schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1);
Is this acceptable to you?
That does not make sense to me.
If you are calling from interrupt context, you do not want
to call flush_to_ldisc() directly regardless of low_latency.
This used to be the way it was done and it ended up causing
deadlocks in just that situation.
And the initial schedule has no reason to add the extra delay.
--
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/
[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]
