Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:11:34 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: your mail |
| |
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 01:21:10AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> @@ -343,7 +267,7 @@ static irqreturn_t line_write_interrupt(int irq, void *data) > { > struct chan *chan = data; > struct line *line = chan->line; > - struct tty_struct *tty = line->tty; > + struct tty_struct *tty = tty_port_tty_get(&line->port); > int err; > > /* > @@ -354,6 +278,9 @@ static irqreturn_t line_write_interrupt(int irq, void *data) > spin_lock(&line->lock); > err = flush_buffer(line); > if (err == 0) { > + tty_kref_put(tty); > + > + spin_unlock(&line->lock); > return IRQ_NONE; > } else if (err < 0) { > line->head = line->buffer; > @@ -365,9 +292,12 @@ static irqreturn_t line_write_interrupt(int irq, void *data) > return IRQ_NONE; > > tty_wakeup(tty); > + tty_kref_put(tty); > return IRQ_HANDLED; > }
That, BTW, smells ugly. Note that return before the last one has no tty_kref_put() for a very good reason - it's under if (!tty). And just as line->tty, port->tty can become NULL, so tty_port_tty_get() can, indeed, return NULL here. Which makes the first tty_kref_put() oopsable...
| |