[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:0.020 / U:1.288 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site