[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: TTY: tty_port questions
> 	* TTY layer allocates tty on demand (open() time) and feeds them
> to ->install(), which is where we associate the suckers with tty_port,
> grabbing a reference to the latter and shoving it into ->driver_data (OK,
> it or that to struct it's embedded into - all the same)

Yep - actually we want to get a tty->port pointer so we can clean up some
of the indirection and allow the core code to get at the port directly

> * ->open()/->close()/->hungup() simply call tty_port_...()
> [BTW, is there any reason why you do not set ->driver_data to port and
> use container_of() in the places that want other parts of containing

See aboe comment.. that's also the way I've been thinking.

> * removal does tty_unregister_device() + prevents ->install() from
> finding it + (under port->mutex) does tty_hangup() on associated tty (if any).
> BTW, I really don't like the look of that place - tty_hangup() is async
> (otherwise it'd deadlock instantly), so what the devil is protecting tty
> from being freed before __tty_hangup() is done with it? And when should

Nothing. However the locking is unfixable in this area until we've
removed the big tty mutex. It's a known problem. I've killed the big tty
mutex in the console layer this -next so we are inching in the right
direction. Once the BTM has gone we can actually fix the unplug race.

> * ->activate() plays strange games with TTY_IO_ERROR; why do we
> bother, seeing that it's under port->mutex and anybody trying to open the
> same tty will wait anyway?

The historic code used to do this and some of our drivers are not fully
converted over so still expect that pattern of behaviour in a few spots.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-28 13:07    [W:0.051 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site