[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251365243.20467.47.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:27:23 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
miltonm@....com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple ports
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 10:08 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > - Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will
> > call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest,
> > I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it
> > might well be ok, but something to verify.
>
> Some of the less well behaved line disciplines do this and always have
> done.
That was also my understanding but heh, I though that maybe you may have
fixed all of that already :-)
So at this stage, I think the reasonably thing to do is to stick to the
spinlock, but we can try to make it a bit smarter, and we can definitely
attempt to fix the case Amit pointed out where we call resize without a
lock while it seems to expect it (though we also need to be careful
about re-entrancy I believe).
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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