[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110223002313.GA21518@tango.0pointer.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:23:13 +0100
From: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: add TIOCVHANGUP: time for revoke() in f_ops ?
On Wed, 23.02.11 00:09, Alan Cox (alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
> It's basically 3 things
> - Lennarts bits for vhangup on an fd
Uh? Me? I didn't write this patch.
(Though I do like to see patch merged and I would use it, and I have
trouble following your logic.)
vhangup() is different from revoke(). vhangup() does weird SIGHUP
handling and stuff, which I think goes way beyond what revoke() would
eventually do. And that different behaviour becomes visible in various
smaller places. e.g. vhangup() results in POLLHUP on the fd, although I
assume that revoke() would more likely result in POLLERR. And there's
more... Let's not pretend this is really the same thing, because it
isn't.
> Its not a quick patch - that's why its not happened yet, vhangup(fd)
> quickfix Lennart style is unfortunately a useless bodge job which like
> most bodge jobs is simply going to spring leaks and need fixing again.
Thanks. If you are trying to insult me, doesn't really work, because I
didn't do this "bodge job". I'll take it as a compliment though that
you say there's a "Lennart style".
Lennart, style icon
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
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