[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101215191339.6e6f8ac0@desktopvm.lvknet>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:13:39 +0300
From: Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Nikita V\. Youshchenko" <yoush@...msu.su>,
linuxpps@...enneenne.com, Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Philippe Langlais <philippe.langlais@...ricsson.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 05/17] tty: don't allow ldisc dcd_change() after ldisc
halt
Hi,
Very sorry for the long delay.
В Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:03:54 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> пишет:
> > Didn't know that current design is crap. :)
>
> It's based on the old big kernel lock and it has lots of horrors when
> used from interrupt paths as a result. A big chunk of it can in time I
> think move to just having a per tty ldisc lock that covers all changes
> etc, but we aren't there yet.
>
> > Ok, I think I'll add a new waitqueue and a new bit (TTY_LDISC_NOREF)
>
> We've got the wait queue already
>
> My first guess would be something like
>
> static struct tty_ldisc *tty_ldisc_irqget(struct tty_struct *tty)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct tty_ldisc *ld;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&tty_ldisc_lock, flags);
> ld = NULL;
> if (test_bit(TTY_LDISC, &tty->flags)) {
> ld = get_ldisc(tty->ldisc);
> WARN_ON(test_and_set_bit(TTY_LDISC_IRQ, &tty->flags));
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty_ldisc_lock, flags);
> return ld;
> }
>
> static struct tty_ldisc *tty_ldisc_irqput(struct tty_ldisc *ld)
> {
> clear_bit(TTY_LDISC_IRQ, &tty->flags);
> tty_ldisc_put(ld);
> }
>
> (and I think you can then wait on tty_ldisc_idle for the flag to go clear
> after clearing TTY_LDISC)
>
> It might be better to make it a count of course in case there are later
> multiple users of this ?
I've just checked the code from v2.6.37 release candidates and found
that the problem is already completely fixed there with the revoking of
tty_ldisc_idle and tty_ldisc_wait_idle() in 100eeae2. :)
Sorry for the fuzz. The discussed patched is not needed any more and
will be dropped.
--
Alexander
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists