* Re: [PATCH] tty: replace mutex_lock() with tty_write_lock()
@ 2013-11-22 8:09 ` walter harms
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: walter harms @ 2013-11-22 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Platschek; +Cc: gregkh, jslaby, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
Am 21.11.2013 20:12, schrieb Andreas Platschek:
> Use tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() consistently.
>
> This takes care of the following sparse warning:
> drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1169:17: warning: context imbalance in 'tty_write_message' - unexpected unlock
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Platschek <andi.platschek@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> index 3a1a01a..13dca92 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ out:
> void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
> {
> if (tty) {
> - mutex_lock(&tty->atomic_write_lock);
> + tty_write_lock(tty,0);
> tty_lock(tty);
> if (tty->ops->write && !test_bit(TTY_CLOSING, &tty->flags)) {
> tty_unlock(tty);
i am not an expert on this but you may need to replace that tty_unlock() with tty_write_unlock().
re,
wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tty: replace mutex_lock() with tty_write_lock()
2013-11-22 8:09 ` walter harms
@ 2013-11-22 8:22 ` Andreas Platschek
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Platschek @ 2013-11-22 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wharms; +Cc: gregkh, jslaby, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
Hi,
On 11/22/2013 09:09 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
> Am 21.11.2013 20:12, schrieb Andreas Platschek:
>> Use tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() consistently.
>>
>> This takes care of the following sparse warning:
>> drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1169:17: warning: context imbalance in 'tty_write_message' - unexpected unlock
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Platschek <andi.platschek@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> index 3a1a01a..13dca92 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ out:
>> void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
>> {
>> if (tty) {
>> - mutex_lock(&tty->atomic_write_lock);
>> + tty_write_lock(tty,0);
>> tty_lock(tty);
>> if (tty->ops->write && !test_bit(TTY_CLOSING, &tty->flags)) {
>> tty_unlock(tty);
> i am not an expert on this but you may need to replace that tty_unlock() with tty_write_unlock()
The tty_unlock() you see in the patch belongs to the tty_lock() right
after the tty_write_lock(), the tty_write_unlock() is already in place
without my patch.
tty_lock()/tty_unlock() and tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() are
operating on different mutexes, both are needed here.
thx!
Andi
>
> re,
> wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tty: replace mutex_lock() with tty_write_lock()
@ 2013-11-22 8:22 ` Andreas Platschek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Platschek @ 2013-11-22 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wharms; +Cc: gregkh, jslaby, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
Hi,
On 11/22/2013 09:09 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
> Am 21.11.2013 20:12, schrieb Andreas Platschek:
>> Use tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() consistently.
>>
>> This takes care of the following sparse warning:
>> drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1169:17: warning: context imbalance in 'tty_write_message' - unexpected unlock
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Platschek <andi.platschek@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> index 3a1a01a..13dca92 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ out:
>> void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
>> {
>> if (tty) {
>> - mutex_lock(&tty->atomic_write_lock);
>> + tty_write_lock(tty,0);
>> tty_lock(tty);
>> if (tty->ops->write && !test_bit(TTY_CLOSING, &tty->flags)) {
>> tty_unlock(tty);
> i am not an expert on this but you may need to replace that tty_unlock() with tty_write_unlock()
The tty_unlock() you see in the patch belongs to the tty_lock() right
after the tty_write_lock(), the tty_write_unlock() is already in place
without my patch.
tty_lock()/tty_unlock() and tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() are
operating on different mutexes, both are needed here.
thx!
Andi
>
> re,
> wh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tty: replace mutex_lock() with tty_write_lock()
2013-11-22 8:09 ` walter harms
@ 2013-11-22 8:29 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2013-11-22 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: walter harms
Cc: Andreas Platschek, gregkh, jslaby, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:09:15AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.11.2013 20:12, schrieb Andreas Platschek:
> > Use tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() consistently.
> >
> > This takes care of the following sparse warning:
> > drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1169:17: warning: context imbalance in 'tty_write_message' - unexpected unlock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Platschek <andi.platschek@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > index 3a1a01a..13dca92 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ out:
> > void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
> > {
> > if (tty) {
> > - mutex_lock(&tty->atomic_write_lock);
> > + tty_write_lock(tty,0);
> > tty_lock(tty);
> > if (tty->ops->write && !test_bit(TTY_CLOSING, &tty->flags)) {
> > tty_unlock(tty);
>
> i am not an expert on this but you may need to replace that tty_unlock() with tty_write_unlock().
No. The original code is correct.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tty: replace mutex_lock() with tty_write_lock()
@ 2013-11-22 8:29 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2013-11-22 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: walter harms
Cc: Andreas Platschek, gregkh, jslaby, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:09:15AM +0100, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.11.2013 20:12, schrieb Andreas Platschek:
> > Use tty_write_lock()/tty_write_unlock() consistently.
> >
> > This takes care of the following sparse warning:
> > drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1169:17: warning: context imbalance in 'tty_write_message' - unexpected unlock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Platschek <andi.platschek@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > index 3a1a01a..13dca92 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ out:
> > void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct *tty, char *msg)
> > {
> > if (tty) {
> > - mutex_lock(&tty->atomic_write_lock);
> > + tty_write_lock(tty,0);
> > tty_lock(tty);
> > if (tty->ops->write && !test_bit(TTY_CLOSING, &tty->flags)) {
> > tty_unlock(tty);
>
> i am not an expert on this but you may need to replace that tty_unlock() with tty_write_unlock().
No. The original code is correct.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread