On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 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 :).
Sorry :)
> But the question is rather don't we want to pass the real
> refcounted port->tty (take a snapshot inside the lock) instead?
I think that's why he moved the kref release to after the shutdown (via
tty_port_set_tty()) -- but I'm tired and maybe I'm missing something
here?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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
