[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120502044544.GA32521@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 21:45:44 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Killing the tty lock
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> This is a first stab at it by making the lock per tty and using tty_mutex
> to cover the lookup for now. We ought to move to the lookup handing back
> ttys with a ref but thats a further step.
>
> It seems to mostly work but not quite reliably, so coul do with some more
> eyes and review for ideas.
It's mostly pretty "sane", but what is this:
> +/*
> + * Getting the big tty mutex for a pair of ttys with lock ordering
> + * On a non pty/tty pair tty2 can be NULL which is just fine.
> + */
> +void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> +{
> + if (tty < tty2) {
> + tty_lock(tty);
> + tty_lock(tty2);
> + } else {
> + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> + tty_lock(tty2);
> + tty_lock(tty);
> + }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock_pair);
> +
> +void __lockfunc tty_unlock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> +{
> + tty_unlock(tty);
> + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> + tty_unlock(tty2);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_unlock_pair);
for?
And what's with the comparing of pointers as "<"? How portable is that
really, and how are we supposed to control the memory location of these
structures?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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