[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362520976.18799.134.camel@thor.lan>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:02:56 -0500
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: jhovold@...il.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PATCH v2 0/4] TTY: port hangup and close fixes]
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> >> port->count = 0;
> >> port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
> >> - if (port->tty) {
> >> + if (port->tty)
> >> set_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &port->tty->flags);
> >> - tty_kref_put(port->tty);
> >> - }
> >> - port->tty = NULL;
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> >>> + tty_port_shutdown(port, port->tty);
> >>
> >> What prevents port->tty to be NULL here already?
> >
> > Nothing. That's why it's tested in tty_port_shutdown() above.
>
> I know :).
Sorry :)
> But the question is rather don't we want to pass the real
> refcounted port->tty (take a snapshot inside the lock) instead?
I think that's why he moved the kref release to after the shutdown (via
tty_port_set_tty()) -- but I'm tired and maybe I'm missing something
here?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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