On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
>> port->count = 0;
>> port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
>> - if (port->tty) {
>> + if (port->tty)
>> set_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &port->tty->flags);
>> - tty_kref_put(port->tty);
>> - }
>> - port->tty = NULL;
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
>>> + tty_port_shutdown(port, port->tty);
>>
>> What prevents port->tty to be NULL here already?
>
> Nothing. That's why it's tested in tty_port_shutdown() above.
I know :). But the question is rather don't we want to pass the real
refcounted port->tty (take a snapshot inside the lock) instead?
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
