lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/13] tty: untangle locking of wait_until_sent
Date
On Wednesday 05 May 2010 21:59:05 Alan Cox wrote:
> > Some wait_until_sent versions require the big
> > tty mutex, others don't and some callers of
> > wait_until_sent already hold it while other don't.
> > That leads to recursive use of the BTM in these
> > functions, which we're trying to get rid of.
>
> I don't believe any of the currently live ones do.

Ok, that simplifies things, at least we can call
tty->ops->wait_until_sent(tty, timeout) while holding
the BTM then, even with the next patch that makes it
non-recursive.

> > drivers/char/hvc_console.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/char/hvcs.c | 2 +-
>
> Doesn't seemn to need it

These, and most of the others in this patch call tty_wait_until_sent()
from their close() function. That contains the lines

if (wait_event_interruptible_timeout(tty->write_wait,
!tty_chars_in_buffer(tty), timeout) >= 0) {

Part of what my patch does is to give up the BTM when already
holding it, to mimic the BKL behavior.
If you can confirm that this wait_event never blocks indefinitely
or has to wait for the BTM from another function, that could just
be removed. Otherwise, it probably needs to become something ugly
like

if (tty_chars_in_buffer(tty)) {
if (tty_locked()) {
tty_unlock();
wait = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(tty->write_wait,
!tty_chars_in_buffer(tty), timeout) >= 0);
tty_lock();
} else {
wait = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(tty->write_wait,
!tty_chars_in_buffer(tty), timeout) >= 0);
}
if (wait && tty->ops->wait_until_sent)
tty->ops->wait_until_sent(tty, timeout);
}

I already had to introduce a few of these constructs to make the BTM
non-recursive, but I'd prefer to keep the number as low as possible
for obvious reasons.

> > drivers/char/specialix.c | 2 +-
>
> Broken

> This makes me think that now might be a good time to consign the broken
> crap to the bitbucket unless someone stands up with hardware and who
> wants to maintain it.

Fine with me.
While I technically own a 16-port specialix card somewhere in my
parents' basement, I'm not exactly interested in maintaining the
driver.

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-05 23:35    [W:0.066 / U:64.492 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site