> And no, I'm not sure my patch helps. I'd have expected > 'tty_buffer_flush()' to be something very rare, for example. But I also > didn't really check if we may do it some other way. It is rare for most applications > But I _am_ sure that it makes the code a whole lot more straightforward. > Bits that say "we're busy flushing" suddenly actually act that way, and > pointers that say "this is the head of the buffers" also act that wy. The more I look the more I think a mutex is the right answer. It also provides us with a "stop feeding me" lock for ldisc changes and tty close down bits. -- 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
