[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.

[ Alan added to participants list, since he's in charge of tty code ]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, James Simmons wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> index de37ebc..34894e5 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tty_schedule_flip(struct tty_struct *tty)
> if (tty->buf.tail != NULL)
> tty->buf.tail->commit = tty->buf.tail->used;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
> - schedule_delayed_work(&tty->, 1);
> + schedule_delayed_work(&tty->, 0);

Is there any real reason for this?

I think that patch is bogus. Either it should stay at 1, or the whole work
should be a non-scheduled one instead.

Do we really need to handle it asap for the console, or is it ok to wait
for the next tick, like the regular tty case used to?

And if we need to handle it asap, why the "delayed"?

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: 2007-07-17 21:27    [W:0.057 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site