[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201003310939.15324.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:39:14 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 7/9] ppp: use big tty mutex
On Wednesday 31 March 2010 06:37:12 Américo Wang wrote:
> > @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static const int npindex_to_ethertype[NUM_NP] = {
> > */
> > static int ppp_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > {
> > - cycle_kernel_lock();
> > + tty_lock();
> > + tty_unlock();
>
> I don't really get your point here. :) Why do you do this?
This is a blind conversion of the API from the common BKL functions to
the TTY lock functions. There is no cycle_tty_lock(), so I'm manually
doing the cycle.
The reason why cycle_kernel_lock() was introduced in the first place
is that some drivers may depend on the open() function not returning
while another CPU holds the BKL. I did not feel qualified (or motivated)
to determine if the ppp code has the behavior, so I left it at this.
Arnd
--
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