[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561B7B01.40309@imap.cc>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:18:57 +0200
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 16/33] isdn/gigaset: reset tty->receive_room when
attaching ser_gigaset
Paul,
Am 06.10.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Paul Bolle:
> On ma, 2015-09-21 at 18:07 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 21.09.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Peter Hurley:
>>> ???
>>>
>>> The tool you authored will do it from the command line
>>>
>>> $ ldattach PPP /dev/ttyS1
>>> $ ldattach GIGASET_M101 /dev/ttyS1
>>>
>>> Note that nothing here closes the serial device 'in between', and
>>> the tty core has switched directly from PPP to GIGASET_M101.
>>> n_tty->receive_room is now 64K.
>>
>> Indeed it does. I stand corrected. The possibility of running ldattach a
>> second time without terminating the first instance didn't occur to me.
>
> Naive question: when would running ldattach a second time make sense?
Peter's argument wasn't about making sense, but about operator error.
While it doesn't make any sense indeed to run two instances of ldattach
in parallel on one and the same serial port, it is entirely conceivable
that someone might do so inadvertently, by not being aware that one is
running already.
Best Regards,
Tilman
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists