From: Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@gmail.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: prevent unnecessary work queue lock checking on flip buffer copy
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:33:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMSQXEGEf8xSYZa+0N77K-Ld5xHLefyMHtK6FxcKCqNhpnMp6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120920173305.15ea580a@bob.linux.org.uk>
Hi,
2012/9/20 Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>:
>
> This seems reasonable, but given its also relevant for upstream it
> would be nice to get it without the ifdef in upstream.
>
> The corner case is when the tty->low_latency flag is flipped but the
> drivers should handle that gracefully and if not we should fix them so
> you can get your 100uS.
>
> Alan
Actually this patch is related to my previous patch "tty: cleanup
duplicate functions in tty_buffer". Some drivers call the
tty_schedule_flip() function instead of tty_flip_buffer_push(). In
that case the work queue is always used, regardless the
tty->low_latency flag. That's why tried to get rid of the
tty_schedule_flip() function.
But from the first review remarks on the "tty: cleanup duplicate
functions in tty_buffer" patch, that patch seems to be invalid. So in
that case this patch is invalid also.
Regards,
Ivo Sieben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-24 9:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-20 14:02 [PATCH] tty: prevent unnecessary work queue lock checking on flip buffer copy Ivo Sieben
2012-09-20 16:33 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-24 9:33 ` Ivo Sieben [this message]
2012-09-25 12:01 ` [PATCH-v2] " Ivo Sieben
2012-09-25 13:06 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-25 14:39 ` Ivo Sieben
2012-09-25 14:47 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-27 11:58 ` [PATCH-v3] " Ivo Sieben
2012-09-27 12:02 ` Ivo Sieben
2012-10-22 23:47 ` Greg KH
2012-10-23 10:16 ` Alan Cox
2012-10-24 12:35 ` [PATCH] [tty]: Report warning when low_latency flag is wrongly used Ivo Sieben
2012-10-24 14:32 ` Paul Gortmaker
2012-10-24 18:22 ` [PATCH-v3] tty: prevent unnecessary work queue lock checking on flip buffer copy Greg KH
2012-09-27 13:15 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-27 16:53 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMSQXEGEf8xSYZa+0N77K-Ld5xHLefyMHtK6FxcKCqNhpnMp6g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=meltedpianoman@gmail.com \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).