On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > > I can't help feeling a mutex might be simpler. It would also then fix > tiocsti() which is most definitely broken right now and documented as > racing. Hmm. Those tty's have too many different locks already. But maybe we could just have one generic mutex, and use it for termios and IO locking. It makes perfect sense to serialize the ->receive_buf() code with any termios changes, since termios is what affects _how_ that ->receive_buf() function works. I do wonder why tiocsti() doesn't just use the tty buffering layer, though? Maybe that harks back to the whole "pty's did things differently" thing? Why does it go directly to ->receive_buf() in the first place? And let's see if my patch even makes a difference. Maybe the breakage is somewhere else. The "oh, now we call flush_ldisc() from two different contexts" thing seems to be a promising lead, but ... Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
