Re: [PATCH 1/3] Input: sysrq - drop tty argument from sysrq opshandlers
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 22:00:14 EST
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 10:09 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Fundamentally - no. However the impact it has on a lot of the drivers
> will be significant and you'll be submitting a huge patch pile to fix up
> all the locking assumptions (for one it means port->tty might change
> across any call that ends up in sysrq)
Right. That's nasty. I think we need somewhat to break the loop when
that happens as if we were getting a new interrupt to some extent.
And that's a lot of drivers to fix.
> > serial drivers might need to be audited a bit to make sure they cope
> > with the lock being dropped and re-acquired around the sysrq call.
> Architecturally I think it would make more sense to add a new sysrq
> helper which merely sets a flag, and check that flag at the end of the IRQ
> when dropping the lock anyway.
Interesting idea. That does mean that multiple sysrq in one interrupt
will be coalesced but I don't see that as an issue.
> Otherwise it'll be a huge amount of work to even build test all those
Right. Better to have a way where we can fix them one at a time. I'll
look into it. Thanks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/