Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 6/9] add a loop counter based timeoutmechanism

[Gregory Haskins]

>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at  5:06 PM, in message
<20080225220601.GH2659@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> I believe you have _way_ too many config variables. If this can be set
> at runtime, does it need a config option, too?

Generally speaking, I think until this algorithm has an adaptive-timeout in addition to an adaptive-spin/sleep, these .config based defaults are a good idea.  Sometimes setting these things at runtime are a PITA when you are talking about embedded systems that might not have/want a nice userspace sysctl-config infrastructure.  And changing the defaults in the code is unattractive for some users.  I don't think its a big deal either way, so if people hate the config options, they should go.  But I thought I would throw this use-case out there to ponder.

Regards,
-Greg

--
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/