On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:43 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:14:56PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:52 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > Yes, I did. First, the order should not matter for blocked opens as they > > > will exit their wait loops based on tty_hung_up_p(filp) either way. > > > > Only if the open() was ever successful, otherwise the filp won't be in > > the tty->tty_files list. That's why the blocking opens also check > > ASYNC_INITIALIZED (or ASYNCB_INITIALIZED depending on which they use). > > Which is why I said it was actually better to shutdown() first, then > > wake up the blocked opens. > > ASYNC_INITIALIZED have also been cleared when the blocked opens are > being woken up from tty_port_close_end. > > And the filp is added to tty_files before open() is called: > > ===> tty_add_file(tty, filp); > > check_tty_count(tty, __func__); > if (tty->driver->type == TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && > tty->driver->subtype == PTY_TYPE_MASTER) > noctty = 1; > #ifdef TTY_DEBUG_HANGUP > printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: opening %s...\n", __func__, tty->name); > #endif > if (tty->ops->open) > ===> retval = tty->ops->open(tty, filp); > > so a blocked open must have hung_up_tty_fops when woken up from hangup, > right? You're right, my mistake. > Either way, postponing wake-up somewhat in tty_port_hangup should be > fine. Yep. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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
