Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:06:58 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tree |
| |
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 03:55:44PM -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Hmm. I think that the "honor opost flag for echoes" patch is actually > > wrong. > > > > We check O_OPOST() in the _caller_ for the regular write case, and that > > test actually looks like this: > > > > if (O_OPOST(tty) && !(test_bit(TTY_HW_COOK_OUT, &tty->flags))) { > > > > so at a minimum, if we add it to process_output() we should likely add it > > in the same format. But if we need that test, I'd rather do it in the > > caller anyway, like we already do for regular writes. > > Yes, very true. The old opost() function also contained the O_OPOST > check (i.e. causing a double check for normal writes), and you are right > that we should not reintroduce it (and it makes sense for the caller to > check it). > > There is only the one case in which the O_OPOST check is needed before > calling do_output_char() (in process_echoes()), so we could just inline > the test there. Take a look at my new attached patch (untested also). > I'll test and resubmit, assuming there are no objections.
Thanks for doing this, I'll drop the patch from my tree and wait for you to test and resubmit this.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |