On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, James Simmons wrote:
>
> Because sometimes you do want the delay. In other parts of the tty
> code we do delay.
Ahh, ok, in that it's ok by me.
> 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?
In that case, we might as well just always do the scheduled_delayed_work()
with a zero timeout as per the earlier patch. I'd still like to know who
*cares*, though? Why not leave it at 1?
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]
