[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5410E8A2.5030802@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:11:14 -0400
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] tty: Always allow tcflow(TCOON) to unwedge terminal
On 09/10/2014 08:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:28:19PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> This patch changes user-space behavior (for the better) but I'm not sure
>> that it's consequence-free. Also, it might not be enough to unwedge the
>> terminal if the driver got its own flow control state mangled.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --- >% ---
>> Subject: [RFC] tty: Always allow tcflow(TCOON) to unwedge terminal
>>
>> If terminal flow has been stopped, the terminal can be unwedged
>> by:
>> tcflow(fd, TCOOFF);
>> tcflow(fd, TCOON);
>> This works because tcflow(TCOOFF) ensures that ->flow_stopped is set,
>> which allows tcflow(TCOON) to override the terminal flow state in
>> __start_tty().
>>
>> Instead, allow unwedging with only:
>> tcflow(fd, TCOON);
>> by disregarding the existing ->flow_stopped state.
>
> I don't see the benifit here, what are you trying to solve? Sending one
> extra tcflow command?
It's not common knowledge (and its certainly counterintuitive) that
turning off output when output is already turned off (ie., tcflow(TCOOFF))
is the required trickery to unwedge a terminal.
Unwedging directly seems the straightforward approach.
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