RE: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P4

[Karl Vogel]

> On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 16:37, karl.vogel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > The following latency trace is generated each time the 
> sound driver is opened
> > by an application on my box.
> > 
> 
> This is a pretty big trace.  Please try to trim these, especially if a
> few lines repeat hundreds of times (common).

Point taken.. I'll blame the 21'' for not noticing the length :)

> The comment seems to imply that the author didn't like the 
> mdelay but it
> didn't work otherwise.  What happens if you get rid of the mdelay?
> 
> Lee

The author didn't like it, but he still put it in, so there must
be a very good reason for it, no? Anyway I will try it out this
evening.

The code also indicates that it is to reset back to 2 channel mode, 
but my notebook only has 2 output channels - so in my case I can
probably skip the entire code snippet.

I'm not a kernel hacker, but I wonder if a lock around the driver
initialisation wouldn't allow it to run with preemption turned on?

Karl.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/