On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 08:54 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 08/29/2018, 06:28 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 16:46 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > On 08/29/2018, 04:23 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > > > It's safe to not lock both here - done to silence attempt
> > > > lockdep
> > > > assert in
> > > > tty_ldisc_open(), which will be added with following patch.
> > >
> > > SOrry, could you elaborate here? I don't follow...
> >
> > Sure, 4/4 patch adds lockdep_assert_held() into tty_ldisc_open().
> > Currently ldisc in tty->link isn't locked, which according to code
> > shouldn't be an issue, as far as I can see.
> >
> > So, this patch silences lockdep warining by holding the semaphore,
> > which is slowpath anyway and doesn't case any new contention.
>
> Eh, no... Adding a lock just to make lockdep happy is a no-go. The
> locking in tty is already complex enough.
>
> > (actually, not holding the semaphore for slave might be an issue if
> > one
> > opens slave before it's fully initialized, but I'm not sure if it's
> > possible).
>
> If that turns out to be a problem, we can apply the patch. BUt unless
> it
> is proven to be so (be it code review or a reproducer), let's leave
> the
> locking as it is.
Ok, than for v2 I'll just remove lockdep_assert() from
tty_ldisc_open().
--
Thanks,
Dmitry
