lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/23] tty: Strengthen no-subsequent-use guarantee of tty_ldisc_halt()
From
Date
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 16:38 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 09:20 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > @@ -688,9 +702,9 @@ int tty_set_ldisc(struct tty_struct *tty, int ldisc)
> > * parallel to the change and re-referencing the tty.
> > */
> >
> > - work = tty_ldisc_halt(tty);
> > + retval = tty_ldisc_halt(tty, &work, 5 * HZ);
> > if (o_tty)
> > - o_work = tty_ldisc_halt(o_tty);
> > + tty_ldisc_halt(o_tty, &o_work, 0);
>
> Zero in there will cause the other end's work not to be cancelled and
> TTY_LDISC_HALTED unset if there are two or more readers on the slave,
> right? So there should be something like:
> if (timeout)
> retval = tty_ldisc_wait_idle(tty, timeout);
> ...
>
> in tty_ldisc_halt.

True.

Fixed in 08/23, where both ldiscs are halted simultaneously, forced to
wait for identical timeouts, and returns an error if either tty timed
out. From 08/23

in tty_ldisc_halt():

retval = tty_ldisc_wait_idle(tty, timeout);
+ if (!retval && o_tty)
+ retval = tty_ldisc_wait_idle(o_tty, timeout);
if (retval)
return retval;

in tty_set_ldisc():

- retval = tty_ldisc_halt(tty, &work, 5 * HZ);
- if (o_tty)
- tty_ldisc_halt(o_tty, &o_work, 0);
+ retval = tty_ldisc_halt(tty, o_tty, &work, &o_work, 5 * HZ);


If you'd prefer, I could put the 5 sec. wait in 7/23 as well, test the
error and so forth.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-07 18:02    [W:0.383 / U:2.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site