On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 10:08 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > - Then, are we certain that there's no case where the tty layer will > > call us with some lock held or in an atomic context ? To be honest, > > I've totally lost track of the locking rules in tty land lately so it > > might well be ok, but something to verify. > > Some of the less well behaved line disciplines do this and always have > done. That was also my understanding but heh, I though that maybe you may have fixed all of that already :-) So at this stage, I think the reasonably thing to do is to stick to the spinlock, but we can try to make it a bit smarter, and we can definitely attempt to fix the case Amit pointed out where we call resize without a lock while it seems to expect it (though we also need to be careful about re-entrancy I believe). Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
