[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170717230438.5c3bd397@alans-desktop>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:04:38 +0100
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Okash Khawaja <okash.khawaja@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@...il.com>,
Chris Brannon <chris@...-brannons.com>,
Kirk Reiser <kirk@...sers.ca>,
"speakup@...ux-speakup.org" <speakup@...ux-speakup.org>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Re: tty contention resulting from
tty_open_by_device export
> Sure. I can fix the tty->count mismatch based on Alan's suggestion. However I don't understand why the exclusivity flag should belong to tty_port and not tty_struct. It will be good to know why.
We are trying to move all the flags that we can and structs into the
tty_port, except any that are used internally within the struct tty
level code. The main reason for this is to make the object lifetimes and
locking simpler - because the tty_port lasts for the time the hardware is
present.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists