[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120315100812.6cda2ef9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:08:12 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>,
"Du, Alek" <alek.du@...el.com>, "Zuo, Jiao" <jiao.zuo@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: hold lock across tty buffer finding and buffer
filling
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:06:43 +0000
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Xiaobing Tu <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>
>
> tty_buffer_request_room is well protected, but while after it returns,
> it releases the port->lock. tty->buf.tail might be modified
This can only occur in a way that matters if you have multiple writers to
the tty buffer.
It is a design requirement of the tty layer that your input is single
threaded paths and this is true for existing drivers. There is a good
reason it is true as well - ordering of bytes is defined for serial data,
any parallel writer breaks that ordering even if you have locks in
tty_insert_flip_*.
In practice that means that the tail pointer has a single incrementer and
the reader is the ldisc processing queue.
So NAK pending a lot more explanation and an actual case where you can
show it is required.
Under what situations with what in tree driver do you see a problem ?
Alan
--
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