On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 05:42:45PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> >But you also have to "hold" events for a bit of time in order to
> >determine that things are out of order, or we have a gap. So a bit of
> >"complex" logic is in the works, but it's much less complex than if we
> >didn't have that sequence number.
> >
>
> OK, so the important point here is that while you probably delay events
> for a small amount of time (1-3 seconds maybe) to ensure that you aren't
> processing steps out of order, it's not likely that userspace is going
> hold event #1321 for an indefinite period of time just because it has
> never seen event #1320.
Exactly.
> I can't wait to see this implementation; it's going to be interesting,
> to say the least. However, without the sequence numbers, it would very
> likely be impossible.
Hey, I still think my originally proposed version would have worked,
eventually... :)
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:28 EST