[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4575870.N9RCpZ4UMg@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:00:59 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next 14/22] tty: Remove tty_wait_until_sent_from_close()
On Monday 16 June 2014 09:17:11 Peter Hurley wrote:
> tty_wait_until_sent_from_close() drops the tty lock while waiting
> for the tty driver to finish sending previously accepted data (ie.,
> data remaining in its write buffer and transmit fifo).
>
> However, dropping the tty lock is a hold-over from when the tty
> lock was system-wide; ie., one lock for all ttys.
>
> Since commit 89c8d91e31f267703e365593f6bfebb9f6d2ad01,
> 'tty: localise the lock', dropping the tty lock has not been necessary.
>
> CC: Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>
> CC: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
I don't understand the second half of the changelog, it doesn't seem
to fit here: there deadlock that we are trying to avoid here happens
when the *same* tty needs the lock to complete the function that
sends the pending data. I don't think we do still do that any more,
but it doesn't seem related to the tty lock being system-wide or not.
Arnd
--
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