[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5113D005.8080809@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:02:13 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ilya Zykov <ilya@...x.ru>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/23] tty: Remove unnecessary re-test of ldisc ref
count
On 02/07/2013 04:59 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 16:16 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 02/05/2013 09:20 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> + char cur_n[TASK_COMM_LEN], tty_n[64];
>>> + long timeout = 3 * HZ;
>>> +
>>> + if (tty->ldisc) { /* Not yet closed */
>>> + tty_unlock(tty);
>>> +
>>> + while (tty_ldisc_wait_idle(tty, timeout) == -EBUSY) {
>>> + timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT;
>>> + printk_ratelimited(KERN_WARNING
>>> + "%s: waiting (%s) for %s took too long, but we keep waiting...\n",
>>> + __func__, get_task_comm(cur_n, current),
>>> + tty_name(tty, tty_n));
>>> }
>>> - break;
>>> + /* must reacquire both locks and preserve lock order */
>>> + mutex_unlock(&tty->ldisc_mutex);
>>> + tty_lock(tty);
>>> + mutex_lock(&tty->ldisc_mutex);
>>> }
>>> return !!(tty->ldisc);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> still want me to fix this though?
It's not worth it. It's up to you.
--
js
suse labs
--
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