linux-kernel - Re: + s390-tty-prepare-for-put_char-to-return-success-fail.patch added to -mm tree

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:45:07 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alan@...hat.com,
	borntraeger@...ibm.com, peter.oberparleiter@...ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: + s390-tty-prepare-for-put_char-to-return-success-fail.patch
	added to -mm tree

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:11:01AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > is allowed or not (1 means yes). Somebody told me that the put_char routine
> > will only be called from schedulable context, which now doesn't seem to be
> > true?!
> 
> It isnt true.
> 
> > For the console functions we pass indeed 0 to __sclp_vt220_write since printk
> > may be called within any context. Is that also true for the tty put_char
> > routine?
> 
> Yes, but failing a put_char is perfectly acceptable.

Ok, thanks for pointing this out! We are going to fix this as soon as your
patch is merged, so we can avoid further merge conflicts.
I assume your patch is for 2.6.26?
--
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/