From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennart Poettering Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: add TIOCVHANGUP: time for revoke() in f_ops ? Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:23:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20110223002313.GA21518@tango.0pointer.de> References: <1297964368.2165.1.camel@yio> <20110218095048.4e9f1e1a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110222231536.GA18066@kroah.com> <20110223000958.7c18fdef@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Greg KH , Kay Sievers , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110223000958.7c18fdef@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23.02.11 00:09, Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > It's basically 3 things > - Lennarts bits for vhangup on an fd Uh? Me? I didn't write this patch. (Though I do like to see patch merged and I would use it, and I have trouble following your logic.) vhangup() is different from revoke(). vhangup() does weird SIGHUP handling and stuff, which I think goes way beyond what revoke() would eventually do. And that different behaviour becomes visible in various smaller places. e.g. vhangup() results in POLLHUP on the fd, although I assume that revoke() would more likely result in POLLERR. And there's more... Let's not pretend this is really the same thing, because it isn't. > Its not a quick patch - that's why its not happened yet, vhangup(fd) > quickfix Lennart style is unfortunately a useless bodge job which like > most bodge jobs is simply going to spring leaks and need fixing again. Thanks. If you are trying to insult me, doesn't really work, because I didn't do this "bodge job". I'll take it as a compliment though that you say there's a "Lennart style". Lennart, style icon -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.