lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:52:14 +0400 From: Alex Stone <alex.parchment@...dex.ru> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Timing 250 versus 1000 No doubt i'm likely to get hammered for asking this on a technical ML, but i'm brave enough and interested enough to risk it. Is there an important reason why timing in the kernel is set to 250 by default? I'm using linux to write music with. With the addition of many of the RT patches in the standard kernel, recording audio at low latencies with a standard kernel is no longer a problem, but for those of us who write a lot of midi driven work, we're still more or less required to use some sort of RT kernel to get any degree of playback timing accuracy. I appreciate my use case is just one among many, but i've done a lot of research on the interlink, and unless i'm missing something really simple here, i can't find a reason why the default timer can't be set at 1000, and be done with it. I appreciate you chaps are busy, and elbow deep in code, just a "yes it could" or "no we won't" would suffice. Thanks, Alex. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists