[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to
> smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always
> zero.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

> I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which directly used
> work_pending instead of delayed_work_pending(), but if you will figure
> this out itself, I'm ok with proposed patch.

If I'm going to get the proper patch from the proper network trees, I'll
just drop my patch. Whether you replace "delayed_work" with "work_struct"
or not is not something I really care about - if you think you may want to
play with the timeout idea in the future, please feel free to continue
using delayed_work.

But if you do use delayed work, please use the "delayed_work_pending(&x)"
function, rather than doing "work_pending(&x->work)" and knowing about the
internals of how the delayed-work structure looks.

So with that out of the way, I'll just expect that I'll get whatever you
decide on through Davem's git tree, once his drunken holiday revelry is
over ;)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.025 / U:29.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site