| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/23] tty: Strengthen no-subsequent-use guarantee of tty_ldisc_halt() | From | Peter Hurley <> | Date | Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:22:14 -0500 |
| |
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.
|