On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:20 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-10-13 am 17:10 +0530, ysgrifennodd Amol Lad:
> > Removed save_flags()/cli()/sti() and used (light weight) spin locks
> >
>
> Three things I see that look problematic
> 2. If the irq handler itself dumbly locks to fix this then we get
> tty_flip_buffer_push() re-entering the other code paths and deadlocking
> if low latency is enabled
The comment above tty_flip_buffer_push() says "This function must not be
called from IRQ context if tty->low_latency is set". In this case
tty_flip_buffer_push() is called from IRQ context. Do you think
tty->low_latency can still be set for this case ? or I misunderstood
your statement completely...
> 3. Some of the use of local_save/spin_lock_irq seems over-clever and
> unneeded
Let me know, I'll fix them too.
>
> Fixable but how about we just delete the file since it has been broken
> for ages and nobody can be using it ?
>
If we cannot delete the file then we must fix it. It's not good the
drivers using old and deprecated interfaces in current phase of kernel
development.
-
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]
