On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 08:19:19PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> How about the patch below? (It's for 3.6, and won't be applied cleanly
> to 3.7, but easy to adapt.)
Thanks, that patch seems to fix the problem.
Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 08:19:19PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
How about the patch below? (It's for 3.6, and won't be applied cleanly
to 3.7, but easy to adapt.)
Thanks, that patch seems to fix the problem.
Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:16:36PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 03.11.2012 15:10, Christof Meerwald wrote:
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.twinkle/3052 and
> > http://pastebin.com/aHGe1S1X for a self-contained C test.
> Some questions:
>
> - Are you seeing
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:16:36PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 03.11.2012 15:10, Christof Meerwald wrote:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.twinkle/3052 and
http://pastebin.com/aHGe1S1X for a self-contained C test.
Some questions:
- Are you seeing the same issue with 3.6.x?
I
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:15:17 + (GMT), Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
> It's almost definitely either a USB driver bug or video4linux driver bug:
>
> I'm CC'ing linux-media and linux-usb mailing lists, the problem is described
> here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/20/35
>
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:15:17 + (GMT), Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
It's almost definitely either a USB driver bug or video4linux driver bug:
I'm CC'ing linux-media and linux-usb mailing lists, the problem is described
here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/20/35
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:13:12 +, Eric Wong wrote:
[...]
> EPOLL_CTL_POKE may be used to force an item into the epoll
> ready list. Instead of disabling an item asynchronously
> via EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE, this forces the threads calling
> epoll_wait() to handle the item in its normal loop.
That was
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:13:12 +, Eric Wong wrote:
[...]
EPOLL_CTL_POKE may be used to force an item into the epoll
ready list. Instead of disabling an item asynchronously
via EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE, this forces the threads calling
epoll_wait() to handle the item in its normal loop.
That was my
Hi Paton,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:37:06PM -0700, Paton J. Lewis wrote:
[...]
> My first concern is about code clarity. Using a custom event to
> delete an event type (either EPOLLIN or EPOLLOUT) from an epoll item
> requires that functionality to be split across two areas of code:
> the code
Hi Paton,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 06:37:06PM -0700, Paton J. Lewis wrote:
[...]
My first concern is about code clarity. Using a custom event to
delete an event type (either EPOLLIN or EPOLLOUT) from an epoll item
requires that functionality to be split across two areas of code:
the code that
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 02:43:06PM -0700, Paton J. Lewis wrote:
> At 6/19/2012 11:17 AM, Christof Meerwald wrote:
> >But, taking one step back - wouldn't an alternative approach be to add
> >some mechanism to allow a thread to post a user-event for an fd? So in
> >delete_epol
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 02:43:06PM -0700, Paton J. Lewis wrote:
At 6/19/2012 11:17 AM, Christof Meerwald wrote:
But, taking one step back - wouldn't an alternative approach be to add
some mechanism to allow a thread to post a user-event for an fd? So in
delete_epoll_item you would post a user
12 matches
Mail list logo
