[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <873a8iqqgv.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:07:28 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>> I see. It sounds like good thing. The attached patch or something?
>> Anyway, I'm not familiar with the tty stuff obviously, so, I'm not sure
>> whether this patch is right or not.
>
> It turns out to be a little bit trickier than I thought because of open
> v close v flush_to_ldisc races (some of the open/close ones being long
> standing).
>
> We now use tty->buf.lock to keep EOF/EOFPENDING/OTHER_CLOSED all in order
> together. That has no real cost as we already hold the buf.lock in the hot
> path which is flush_to_ldisc.
>
> Anyway this is my current thoughts (not yet given a testing)
I see. Looks like clean to me.
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pair->buf.lock, flags);
> + pair->packet = 0;
I worried "pair->packet = 0" when I'm thinking this. I guess it would be
changed more early than before. Is it ok?
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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