Is this necessarily true? Your specific example of "system under load"
really doesn't necessitate timestamping of events. You're supposing
that when a system is loaded, it will always immediately process it's
I/O events and preempt whatever is currently executing (probably
whatever is causing the load at the moment). You may very well be
correct, but I have a funny feeling that the way things currently
work is that the I/O queues up, and is drained at next chance. In
which case, two single-clicks will arrive one after another and
appear to be a double-click - I haven't verified this but I'm just
guessing.
If this *is* the case, then timestamping events in this new protocol
will be unnecessary. Also - if the system *did* actually immediately
process all input from devices, then a device generating spurious
output could starve the rest of the system of cycles. This sounds
like a serious problem, which is why I'm guessing the behavior is
as I predicted.
-Dossy
--
URL: http://www.panoptic.com/~dossy -< BORK BORK! >- E-MAIL: dossy@panoptic.com
Now I'm who I want to be, where I want to be, doing what I've always said I
would and yet I feel I haven't won at all... (Aug 9, 95: Goodbye, JG.)
"You should change your .sig; not that the world revolves around me." -s. sadie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu