On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 08:48 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> Can you redo this against 4.12-rc4 which has the original tty locking
> patch reverted?
It's against 4.12-rc4.
-Mike
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 08:48 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> Can you redo this against 4.12-rc4 which has the original tty locking
> patch reverted?
It's against 4.12-rc4.
-Mike
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:52:27AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> This is just in case. While it works, I consider it to be diagnostic
> data for those unfortunate enough to be intimate with tty locking :)
Can you redo this against 4.12-rc4 which has the original tty locking
patch reverted?
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:52:27AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> This is just in case. While it works, I consider it to be diagnostic
> data for those unfortunate enough to be intimate with tty locking :)
Can you redo this against 4.12-rc4 which has the original tty locking
patch reverted?
This is just in case. While it works, I consider it to be diagnostic
data for those unfortunate enough to be intimate with tty locking :)
---
V1 (925bb1ce47f4) changelog:
tty_insert_flip_string_fixed_flag() is racy against itself when called
from the ioctl(TCXONC, TCION/TCIOFF) path [1] and the
This is just in case. While it works, I consider it to be diagnostic
data for those unfortunate enough to be intimate with tty locking :)
---
V1 (925bb1ce47f4) changelog:
tty_insert_flip_string_fixed_flag() is racy against itself when called
from the ioctl(TCXONC, TCION/TCIOFF) path [1] and the
6 matches
Mail list logo