From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Extending virtio_console to support multiple ports
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:08:09 +0100
Message-ID: <20090827100809.5f0aa0a7@linux.intel.com>
References: <1251181044-3696-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
	<20090826112718.GA11117@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<20090826154552.GA31910@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<1251346023.20467.21.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	borntraeger@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	miltonm@bga.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	brueckner@linux.vnet.ibm.com
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1752038AbZH0JNw@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1251346023.20467.21.camel@pasglop>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

>  - 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.

Alan