On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 17:05 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:01:01PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:59 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:44:48PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > > > > Read lock recursion is no longer required for ldisc references; > > > > remove mechanism. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c | 83 +++++------------------------------------------ > > > > include/linux/tty_ldisc.h | 2 -- > > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) > > > > > > Wait, why did you add something 3 patches ago, only to remove it here? > > > Why not just smush these patches together in the first place? > > > > >From [PATCH v5 00/44] ldisc patchset... > > > > On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 16:44 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > > > v5 changes: > > > > > > After completing an audit of the recursive use of ldisc > > > references, I discovered the _blocking_ recursive acquisition > > > of ldisc references was limited to line disciplines misusing > > > the tty_perform_flush() function. > > > With that now resolved in, > > > 'tty: Fix recursive deadlock in tty_perform_flush()' > > > the recursion design in ldsem has been removed. > > > > > > The recursion removal is in its own patch, > > > 'tty: Remove ldsem recursion support' > > > to ease review for those that have already reviewed the > > > ldsem implementation. > > Ah, ok. Who reviewed the ldsem implementation? I didn't see any other > acks on it, or did I miss them? Nobody ack'd it. What I meant by that was, if someone was working their way through it, it would suck to have the base implementation all different again, and much easier to review just the changes. -- 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
