On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:09 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Fundamentally - no. However the impact it has on a lot of the drivers > will be significant and you'll be submitting a huge patch pile to fix up > all the locking assumptions (for one it means port->tty might change > across any call that ends up in sysrq) Right. That's nasty. I think we need somewhat to break the loop when that happens as if we were getting a new interrupt to some extent. And that's a lot of drivers to fix. > > serial drivers might need to be audited a bit to make sure they cope > > with the lock being dropped and re-acquired around the sysrq call. > > Architecturally I think it would make more sense to add a new sysrq > helper which merely sets a flag, and check that flag at the end of the IRQ > when dropping the lock anyway. Interesting idea. That does mean that multiple sysrq in one interrupt will be coalesced but I don't see that as an issue. > Otherwise it'll be a huge amount of work to even build test all those > consoles. Right. Better to have a way where we can fix them one at a time. I'll look into it. Thanks. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
