Linus Torvalds wrote: > No, the code was clearly _designed_ for it - that's the whole and only > point of the > > tty->buf.head = NULL; I don't know about the original flush_to_ldisc, but I designed the above code to protect against parallel calls knowing I could not hold a spinlock when calling receive_buf. TTY_FLUSHING came later. The problem associated with that addition proves my code is obscure enough to make maintenance difficult. I got confused reviewing my own code yesterday. Boo hoo, live and learn. -- Paul Fulghum MicroGate Systems, Ltd. =Customer Driven, by Design= (800)444-1982 (512)345-7791 (Direct) (512)343-9046 (Fax) Central Time Zone (GMT -5h) www.microgate.com -- 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
