From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Killing the tty lock
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:36:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120509153611.GC22566@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQWyjP7yqJ5HBg-8NvZPu9JZMEpG10sQE1oNRzOnPdYx1g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:08:29AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 11:45:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > It's mostly pretty "sane", but what is this:
> >> >
> >> > > +/*
> >> > > + * Getting the big tty mutex for a pair of ttys with lock ordering
> >> > > + * On a non pty/tty pair tty2 can be NULL which is just fine.
> >> > > + */
> >> > > +void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >> > > + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + if (tty < tty2) {
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty);
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty2);
> >> > > + } else {
> >> > > + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty2);
> >> > > + tty_lock(tty);
> >> > > + }
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock_pair);
> >> > > +
> >> > > +void __lockfunc tty_unlock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >> > > + struct tty_struct *tty2)
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + tty_unlock(tty);
> >> > > + if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> >> > > + tty_unlock(tty2);
> >> > > +}
> >> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_unlock_pair);
> >> >
> >> > for?
> >>
> >> We need to take locks on a pair of tty devices at the same time in some
> >> cases (pty/tty pairs).
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >> > And what's with the comparing of pointers as "<"? How portable is that
> >> > really, and how are we supposed to control the memory location of these
> >> > structures?
> >>
> >> You don't need to. The point is that we must lock any arbitrary pair of
> >> tty structs in a defined order. Pointer comparisons work just fine for
> >> this. The fs layer uses similar logic for inode locking. We only care
> >> that for any given pair of objects the lock ordering is consistent.
> >
> > Ah, ok, that makes more sense, sorry, I didn't understand that.
>
> looks like some patches from Alan in your tty-next cause dead look...
Yes, Alan is currently working on it...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-09 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-01 16:37 Killing the tty lock Alan Cox
2012-05-02 4:45 ` Greg KH
2012-05-02 10:45 ` Alan Cox
2012-05-02 20:36 ` Greg KH
2012-05-08 18:08 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-05-09 15:36 ` Greg KH [this message]
2012-05-02 11:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120509153611.GC22566@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox