On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, James Simmons wrote: > > Because sometimes you do want the delay. In other parts of the tty > code we do delay.
Ahh, ok, in that it's ok by me. > What should be done is > > if (tty->low_latency) > flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work); > else > schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1); > > Is this acceptable to you? In that case, we might as well just always do the scheduled_delayed_work() with a zero timeout as per the earlier patch. I'd still like to know who *cares*, though? Why not leave it at 1? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/