Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.

[Paul Fulghum]

James Simmons wrote:
> The low_latency is used by the drivers in the case where its 
> not in a interrupt context. Well we are trusting the drivers.
> Now if it is true what you said then tty_flip_buffer_push has
> a bug. Looking at several drivers including serial devices
> they set the low_latency flag.

The generic serial driver (8250) is the one that was
dead locking when that code originally existed.
It was setting low_latency and calling from interrupt context.

> > And the initial schedule has no reason to add the extra delay.
>
> So do you support a non delay work queue as well?

No, the delay work must be used for flush_to_ldisc()
so it makes no sense to define two different work queues
(one delayed and one not) for the same work.

I support your patch.

The current stuff works and your patch works.
With your patch, you actually reduce initial
latency for processing receive data.

Whichever way everyone else wants to go.


--
Paul Fulghum
Microgate Systems, Ltd.
-
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/