On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 15:26 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 02:28:42PM -0300, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:29:40 +0100
> > Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > |
> > | Consider this scenario with what you're proposing:
> > |
> > | thread irq
> > |
> > | take mutex
> > | get_mctrl
> > | cts changes state
> > | take port lock
> > | mctrl state read
> > | tty->hw_stopped changed state
> > | release port lock
> > | releaes mutex
> > | take port lock
> > | update tty->hw_stopped
> > | release port lock
> > |
> > | Now, tty->hw_stopped does not reflect the hardware state, which will be
> > | buggy and can cause a loss of transmission.
> > |
> > | I'm not sure what to suggest on this one since for USB drivers you do
> > | need to be able to sleep in this method... but for UARTs you must not.
What about this ugly fragment?
(assuming get_mctrl not called from IRQ)
take mutex
take port lock
again:
save local copy of icount
release port lock
get_mctrl
take port lock
if (icount changed)
goto again
update tty->hw_stopped
release port lock
release mutex
--
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
