On 05/03/2012 02:22 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This is a private pty affair, we don't want to tangle it with the tty_lock > any more as we know all the other non tty locking is now handled by the vfs > so we too can move. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > devpts_pty_kill(tty->link); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > + tty = devpts_get_tty(pts_inode, idx); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > tty = tty_init_dev(ptm_driver, index); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); Conceptually this seems fine, but it would seem cleaner to me to push this mutex into the called functions in devpts; I suspect the lock could be eliminated or at least be made per instance there (which would make massive-container people happy...) -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
