On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 07:37:01PM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
>
>
> On 09-02-23 12:33 pm, Prashanth K wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09-02-23 12:31 pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 10:31:50AM +0530, Prashanth K wrote:
> > > > In that case i guess we have to make port_lock a global variable
> > > > and take it
> > > > out of gs_port structure.
> > > >
> > > > + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(port_lock);
> > > >
> > > > struct gs_port {
> > > > struct tty_port port;
> > > > - spinlock_t port_lock;
> > > >
> > > > This will require us to change all the spinlock(port->port_lock) used in
> > > > u_serial.c, what do you suggest?
> > >
> > > Yes, that would be the correct thing to do.
> Hi Greg/Alan, One general doubt, if we make the spinlock static/global,
> wouldn't that be a problem when there are multiple instances, and also
> multiple interfaces can use u_serial at same time. Asking this because
> u_serial can be used by f_serial (gser) as well as f_acm (acm).
You should consider having _two_ spinlocks: One in the gs_port structure
(the way it is now) and a separate global lock. The first would be used
in situations where you know you have a valid pointer. The second would
be used in situations where you don't know if the pointer is non-NULL
or where you are changing the pointer's value.
Alan Stern
