On (Tue) 12 Mar 2013 [12:05:03], Sjur Brændeland wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On (Mon) 11 Mar 2013 [16:15:00], sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Sjur Brćndeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This reverts commit 8078db789a92b10ff6e2d713231b5367e014c53b. > >> > >> The reverted patch caused opening of ports to fail for rproc_serial. > >> In probe guest_connected was set to true, but port_fops_open() > >> fails with -EMFILE if guest_connected already is true. > > > > OK, I missed that. Can you add a comment near the 2nd hunk mentioning > > this? > > Ok, I ended up rewriting the whole comment here in my attempt > to "mention this". Perhaps it's a bit over the top to write a short essay to > explain two code lines, but anyway here it is. Let me know what you think: > > /* > * Normally the port should not accept data when the port is > * closed. For generic serial ports, the host won't (shouldn't) > * send data till the guest is connected. But this condition > * can be reached when a console port is not yet connected (no > * tty is spawned) and the other side sends out data over the > * vring, or when a remote devices start sending data before > * the ports are opened. > * > * A generic serial port will discard data if not connected, > * while console ports and rproc-serial ports accepts data at > * any time. rproc-serial is initiated with guest_connect = false 'guest_connected' > * because port_fops_open expects this. Console ports are > * hooked up with an HVC console and is initialized with > * guest_connected = true. > */ Yes, it is a bit verbose, but looks fine to me. Thanks, Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
