On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:18:35 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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...) One step at a time. I agree entirely that the ideal case is that devpts_foo is internally locked and coherent. That is an exercise for someone who likes devpts 8) Alan -- 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
