From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Killing the tty lock
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:36:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120509153611.GC22566@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQWyjP7yqJ5HBg-8NvZPu9JZMEpG10sQE1oNRzOnPdYx1g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > It's mostly pretty "sane", but what is this:
> >> >
> >> > > +/*
> >> > > + * Getting the big tty mutex for a pair of ttys with lock ordering
> >> > > + * On a non pty/tty pair tty2 can be NULL which is just fine.
> >> > > + */
> >> > > +void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >> > > + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + if (tty < tty2) {
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty);
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty2);
> >> > > + } else {
> >> > > + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty2);
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty);
> >> > > + }
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock_pair);
> >> > > +
> >> > > +void __lockfunc tty_unlock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >> > > + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + tty_unlock(tty);
> >> > > + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> >> > > + tty_unlock(tty2);
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_unlock_pair);
> >> >
> >> > for?
> >>
> >> We need to take locks on a pair of tty devices at the same time in some
> >> cases (pty/tty pairs).
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >> > And what's with the comparing of pointers as "<"? How portable is that
> >> > really, and how are we supposed to control the memory location of these
> >> > structures?
> >>
> >> You don't need to. The point is that we must lock any arbitrary pair of
> >> tty structs in a defined order. Pointer comparisons work just fine for
> >> this. The fs layer uses similar logic for inode locking. We only care
> >> that for any given pair of objects the lock ordering is consistent.
> >
> > Ah, ok, that makes more sense, sorry, I didn't understand that.
>
> looks like some patches from Alan in your tty-next cause dead look...
Yes, Alan is currently working on it...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-09 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-01 16:37 Killing the tty lock Alan Cox
2012-05-02 4:45 ` Greg KH
2012-05-02 10:45 ` Alan Cox
2012-05-02 20:36 ` Greg KH
2012-05-08 18:08 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-05-09 15:36 ` Greg KH [this message]
2012-05-02 11:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120509153611.GC22566@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.