Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:09:28 -0700 | From | "Gregory Haskins" <> | Subject | Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 6/9] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism |
| |
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM, in message <20080225220601.GH2659@elf.ucw.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> 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
| |