> Signed-off-by: Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- linux-2.6.21-rc2/drivers/char/mxser_new.c.orig2007-04-20
> 15:41:46.0 +0200
> +++
On 4/20/07, Jan Yenya Kasprzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did as you suggested, and I am not able to reproduce the problem
now. The patch is attached. I think it is quite minimal, so it should be
safe to apply it. What do you think, Jiri?
Signed-off-by: Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <[EMAIL
Alan Cox wrote:
: > Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
: > holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
: > acquire it again due to tty->low_latency).
:
: NAK
:
: This is the wrong way to do it. If you don't support recursive
> Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
> holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
> acquire it again due to tty->low_latency).
NAK
This is the wrong way to do it. If you don't support recursive entry then
don't use
Andrew, I think it would be good to have these 3 in 2.6.21.
--
mxser_new, fix recursive locking
Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
acquire it again due to tty->low_latency).
Thanks
Andrew, I think it would be good to have these 3 in 2.6.21.
--
mxser_new, fix recursive locking
Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
acquire it again due to tty-low_latency).
Thanks
Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
acquire it again due to tty-low_latency).
NAK
This is the wrong way to do it. If you don't support recursive entry then
don't use -low_latency.
On 4/20/07, Jan Yenya Kasprzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did as you suggested, and I am not able to reproduce the problem
now. The patch is attached. I think it is quite minimal, so it should be
safe to apply it. What do you think, Jiri?
Signed-off-by: Jan Yenya Kasprzak [EMAIL
Signed-off-by: Jan Yenya Kasprzak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.21-rc2/drivers/char/mxser_new.c.orig2007-04-20
15:41:46.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc2/drivers/char/mxser_new.c
Alan Cox wrote:
: Acquire a port lock only if not in_interrupt in some places, because ISR
: holds the lock yet (and ldisc calls some of driver's routines which tries to
: acquire it again due to tty-low_latency).
:
: NAK
:
: This is the wrong way to do it. If you don't support recursive
10 matches
Mail list logo