[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140617125441.67cd5ef4@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:54:41 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"'Peter Hurley'" <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tty-next 14/22] tty: Remove
tty_wait_until_sent_from_close()
> Before the patch, I believe tty_reopen() would return -EIO because
> the TTY_CLOSING flag is set. After the patch, tty_open() blocks
> on tty_lock() before calling tty_reopen(). AFAICT, this is independent
> of O_NONBLOCK.
That would be a bug then. Returning -EIO is fine (if unfriendly). The
O_NONBLOCK can't block in this case though because the port could take a
long time to give up trying to dribble its bits (up to 30 seconds or so)
Alan
--
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