[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090725163251.50e6f546@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:32:51 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression] kdesu broken
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:55:39 +0900
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
> Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> > Actually try this:
>
> Thanks. This patch improved situation. However, if slave writes big data
> to buffer, it seems we still have the problem.
>
> > + tty_flip_buffer_push(tty->link);
>
> This is handling the pending buffer, but in flush_to_ldisc(), if
> !tty->receive_room, it seems still delay the ->receive_buf().
Agreed - we could
wait_event_interruptible(tty->write_wait,
tty->link->receive_room);
or similar.
Good to know the initial fix works. To actually do it cleanly probably
wants a way to pass a logical channel close through the tty layer which
isn't I think too hard
set a new TTY_OTHER_CLOSING in the pty code
set TTY_OTHER_CLOSED in the flip_buffer_push code if we empty the
buffer queue and TTY_OTHER_CLOSING is set.
That would also avoid using tty->low_latency=1 in the pty layer which I
worry may harm PPP gateway performance and the like.
--
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