[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPybu_1wg5wSmJxofC1oGVr-w8OEVFChcoHRSSq5RpFGDKE69g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:37:53 +0100
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.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.
Hello Alan
After almost one month with no other comments I am planning to resend
the patchset including the lock patch. May I add your Reviewed or
Acked by to any of the patches?
Thanks :)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Ricardo Ribalda
--
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