[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1412864192.28467.72.camel@acox1-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:16:32 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] serial_core: Handle TIOC[GS]RS485 ioctls.
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:07 +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> Hello Alan
>
> >
> > What is the locking between setting/getting/driver use of the config ?
> > This really needs a lock (termios sem I think is perhaps appropriate
> > given when the values are normally referenced).
>
> I tried implementing it with the sermios sem
> ((&(uart_port)->state->port.tty->termios_rwsem)), but some drivers
> access the rs485 structure inside their irq handler. So I have see
> options here
>
> 1) Protect the structure with uart_port->lock spinlock
> 2) Assume that an assignment is atomic on critical sections where I
> cannot hold the rwsem.
>
> I think 1) is more correct. Any issues that I continue in this
> direction? Any better idea?
For uart #1 sounds right to me too.
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