[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <50AE2CE30200003600026B9A@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:47:15 +1300
From: "andrew mcgregor" <andrew.mcgregor@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "Ilya Zykov" <ilya@...x.ru>, "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Add driver unthrottle in
ioctl(...,TCFLSH,..).
>>> On 11/22/2012 at 10:39 AM, in message <50AD4A01.7060500@...x.ru>, Ilya Zykov
<ilya@...x.ru> wrote:
> On 22.11.2012 1:30, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Function reset_buffer_flags() also invoked during the
> >> ioctl(...,TCFLSH,..). At the time of request we can have full buffers
> >> and throttled driver too. If we don't unthrottle driver, we can get
> >> forever throttled driver, because after request, we will have
> >> empty buffers and throttled driver and there is no place to unthrottle
> driver.
> >> It simple reproduce with "pty" pair then one side sleep on tty->write_wait,
> >> and other side do ioctl(...,TCFLSH,..). Then there is no place to do
> writers wake up.
> >
> >
> > So instead of revertng it why not just fix it ? Just add an argument to
> > the reset_buffer_flags function to indicate if unthrottling is permitted.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> Because in my opinion, unthrottling permitted always, except release
> last filp (tty->count == 0)
Maybe so, but the patch was there in the first place to resolve an actual observed bug, where a driver would lock up. So the behaviour needs preserved.
Andrew
--
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