On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 12:41:53 +0100 > Okash Khawaja <okash.khawaja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > Overall, the idea looks sane to me. Keeping userspace from opening a > > > tty that the kernel has opened internally makes sense, hopefully > > > userspace doesn't get too confused when that happens. I don't think we > > > normally return -EBUSY from an open call, have you seen what happens > > > with apps when you do this (like minicom?) > > > > > I tested this wil minincom, picocom and commands like "echo foo > > > /dev/ttyS0". They all correctly report "Device or resource busy". > > > > I have addressed all the comments you made. I have also split the patch > > into three. Following is summary of each. > > If the tty counts are being misreported then it would be better to fix > the code to actually manage the counts properly. The core tty code is > telling you that the tty is not in a valid state. While this is of > itself a good API to have, the underlying reference miscounting ought > IMHO to be fixed as well. When opening from kernel, we don't use file pointer. The count mismatch is between tty->count and #fd's. So opening from kernel leads to #fd's being less than tty->count. I thought this difference is relevant to user-space opening of tty, and not to kernel opening of tty. Can you suggest how to address this mismatch? > > Also you don't need a new TTY_KOPENED flag as far as I can see. All tty's > have a usage count and active bit flags already. Use those. Ah may be I didn't notice the active bit. Is it one of the #defines in tty.h? Can usage count and active bit be used to differentiate between whether the tty was opened by kernel or user? Thanks, Okash _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
