Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 11:41:44AM -0500, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > The cleaner fix looks more intrusive, though.
> > 
> > Is this simpler change (what I'm running but without the warning
> > messages) the preferred fix for -stable?
> 
> It fixes the problem.

So do you feel this patch should be added to the -stable kernel tree?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

[Paul Fulghum]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 11:41:44AM -0500, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> 
>>Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>
>>>The cleaner fix looks more intrusive, though.
>>>
>>>Is this simpler change (what I'm running but without the warning
>>>messages) the preferred fix for -stable?
>>
>>It fixes the problem.
> 
> 
> So do you feel this patch should be added to the -stable kernel tree?

No. Now that I think about it, adding that extra
macro is just wrong even if temporary.

The real fix is equally simple, but in 2.6.18-rc
it is intertwined with other more intrusive changes.

Let me make a new separate patch that does things
the right way, which is simply removing the list
head while processing the list so two instances
to not trip over each other. I would have done so
earlier, but I've been insanely busy with multiple
work related deadlines (lame excuse I know).

I should post something tomorrow afternoon.

-- 
Paul Fulghum
Microgate Systems, Ltd.

Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

[Chuck Ebbert]

In-Reply-To: <20060725184158.GH9021@kroah.com>

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:41:58 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > > Is this simpler change (what I'm running but without the warning
> > > messages) the preferred fix for -stable?
> > 
> > It fixes the problem.
>
> So do you feel this patch should be added to the -stable kernel tree?

I think it's the right fix.

        1.  It fixes a real bug and that's been verified by testing.
        2.  It's the simplest change that does so. (The fix in 2.6.18-rc
            touches a lot of code.)

-- 
Chuck

Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

[Paul Fulghum]

Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <20060725184158.GH9021@kroah.com>
> 
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:41:58 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
>>>>Is this simpler change (what I'm running but without the warning
>>>>messages) the preferred fix for -stable?
>>>
>>>It fixes the problem.
>>
>>So do you feel this patch should be added to the -stable kernel tree?
> 
> 
> I think it's the right fix.
> 
>         1.  It fixes a real bug and that's been verified by testing.
>         2.  It's the simplest change that does so. (The fix in 2.6.18-rc
>             touches a lot of code.)

OK, I have no objections (it saves me time).
I'll let you guys decide.

-- 
Paul Fulghum
Microgate Systems, Ltd.

Re: [stable] Success: tty_io flush_to_ldisc() error message triggered

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 02:12:28PM -0500, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 11:41:44AM -0500, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> > 
> >>Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >>
> >>>The cleaner fix looks more intrusive, though.
> >>>
> >>>Is this simpler change (what I'm running but without the warning
> >>>messages) the preferred fix for -stable?
> >>
> >>It fixes the problem.
> > 
> > 
> > So do you feel this patch should be added to the -stable kernel tree?
> 
> No. Now that I think about it, adding that extra
> macro is just wrong even if temporary.
> 
> The real fix is equally simple, but in 2.6.18-rc
> it is intertwined with other more intrusive changes.
> 
> Let me make a new separate patch that does things
> the right way, which is simply removing the list
> head while processing the list so two instances
> to not trip over each other. I would have done so
> earlier, but I've been insanely busy with multiple
> work related deadlines (lame excuse I know).
> 
> I should post something tomorrow afternoon.

Ok, we can wait, I'd rather have the proper fix instead of the band-aid.

Just send it to stable@kernel.org when you have something that you feel
comfortable with.

thanks,

greg k-h