[PATCH] amiserial: Prepare for locking relaxation in caller.

[PATCH] amiserial: Prepare for locking relaxation in caller.

[Alan Cox]

Just wrap this one in a lock_kernel. As I understand it there is no M68K
SMP anyway.

Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>

diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude linux.vanilla-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/drivers/char/amiserial.c linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/drivers/char/amiserial.c
--- linux.vanilla-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/drivers/char/amiserial.c	2008-02-19 11:01:44.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/drivers/char/amiserial.c	2008-02-20 11:45:28.000000000 +0000
@@ -1074,6 +1074,7 @@
 	if (!retinfo)
 		return -EFAULT;
 	memset(&tmp, 0, sizeof(tmp));
+	lock_kernel();
 	tmp.type = state->type;
 	tmp.line = state->line;
 	tmp.port = state->port;
@@ -1084,6 +1085,7 @@
 	tmp.close_delay = state->close_delay;
 	tmp.closing_wait = state->closing_wait;
 	tmp.custom_divisor = state->custom_divisor;
+	unlock_kernel();
 	if (copy_to_user(retinfo,&tmp,sizeof(*retinfo)))
 		return -EFAULT;
 	return 0;
@@ -1099,13 +1101,17 @@
 
 	if (copy_from_user(&new_serial,new_info,sizeof(new_serial)))
 		return -EFAULT;
+		
+	lock_kernel();
 	state = info->state;
 	old_state = *state;
   
 	change_irq = new_serial.irq != state->irq;
 	change_port = (new_serial.port != state->port);
-	if(change_irq || change_port || (new_serial.xmit_fifo_size != state->xmit_fifo_size))
+	if(change_irq || change_port || (new_serial.xmit_fifo_size != state->xmit_fifo_size)) {
+	  unlock_kernel();
 	  return -EINVAL;
+	}
   
 	if (!serial_isroot()) {
 		if ((new_serial.baud_base != state->baud_base) ||
@@ -1122,8 +1128,10 @@
 		goto check_and_exit;
 	}
 
-	if (new_serial.baud_base < 9600)
+	if (new_serial.baud_base < 9600) {
+		unlock_kernel();
 		return -EINVAL;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * OK, past this point, all the error checking has been done.
@@ -1157,6 +1165,7 @@
 		}
 	} else
 		retval = startup(info);
+	unlock_kernel();
 	return retval;
 }
 

Re: [PATCH] amiserial: Prepare for locking relaxation in caller.

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:11:01 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> Just wrap this one in a lock_kernel. As I understand it there is no M68K
> SMP anyway.
> 

I assume that all the bkl/locking patches are prerequisites for
tty-bkl-pushdown.patch, and that they don't depend upon
tty-bkl-pushdown.patch?

Re: [PATCH] amiserial: Prepare for locking relaxation in caller.

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:05:25 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:11:01 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Just wrap this one in a lock_kernel. As I understand it there is no M68K
> > SMP anyway.
> > 
> 
> I assume that all the bkl/locking patches are prerequisites for
> tty-bkl-pushdown.patch, and that they don't depend upon
> tty-bkl-pushdown.patch?

They are all prequisites for some changes I've yet to send you and will
do once I'm sure I've not upset anything in the meantime. There should be
no interdependancies although I've obviously not tested every possible
combination

Alan