From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933444AbXGQUCv (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756830AbXGQUCn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:43 -0400 Received: from adsl-70-250-156-241.dsl.austtx.swbell.net ([70.250.156.241]:43742 "EHLO gw.microgate.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754202AbXGQUCn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:43 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2124 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:43 EDT Message-ID: <469D2F67.40305@microgate.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:06:47 -0600 From: Paul Fulghum User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Simmons CC: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux console project Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code. References: <469D2810.9080109@microgate.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Simmons wrote: > Because sometimes you do want the delay. In other parts of the tty > code we do delay. What should be done is Correct, so we must stick with the delayed work structure which requires calling the delayed work function. > if (tty->low_latency) > flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work); > else > schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1); > > Is this acceptable to you? That does not make sense to me. If you are calling from interrupt context, you do not want to call flush_to_ldisc() directly regardless of low_latency. This used to be the way it was done and it ended up causing deadlocks in just that situation. And the initial schedule has no reason to add the extra delay. -- Paul Fulghum Microgate Systems, Ltd.