From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936199AbXGQUrz (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:47:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933900AbXGQUnF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:43:05 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:35478 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934308AbXGQUnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:43:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: James Simmons cc: Paul Fulghum , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux console project Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <469D2810.9080109@microgate.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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