From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tree Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:06:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20090908160658.GA4739@kroah.com> References: <20090907191347.fe010955.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4AA58160.7080908@skyrush.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:57940 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbZIHQJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:09:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AA58160.7080908@skyrush.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Joe Peterson Cc: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 03:55:44PM -0600, Joe Peterson wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Hmm. I think that the "honor opost flag for echoes" patch is actually > > wrong. > > > > We check O_OPOST() in the _caller_ for the regular write case, and that > > test actually looks like this: > > > > if (O_OPOST(tty) && !(test_bit(TTY_HW_COOK_OUT, &tty->flags))) { > > > > so at a minimum, if we add it to process_output() we should likely add it > > in the same format. But if we need that test, I'd rather do it in the > > caller anyway, like we already do for regular writes. > > Yes, very true. The old opost() function also contained the O_OPOST > check (i.e. causing a double check for normal writes), and you are right > that we should not reintroduce it (and it makes sense for the caller to > check it). > > There is only the one case in which the O_OPOST check is needed before > calling do_output_char() (in process_echoes()), so we could just inline > the test there. Take a look at my new attached patch (untested also). > I'll test and resubmit, assuming there are no objections. Thanks for doing this, I'll drop the patch from my tree and wait for you to test and resubmit this. thanks, greg k-h