Re: TTY: tty_port questions

From: Alan Cox
Date: Wed Mar 28 2012 - 07:04:19 EST

> * TTY layer allocates tty on demand (open() time) and feeds them
> to ->install(), which is where we associate the suckers with tty_port,
> grabbing a reference to the latter and shoving it into ->driver_data (OK,
> it or that to struct it's embedded into - all the same)

Yep - actually we want to get a tty->port pointer so we can clean up some
of the indirection and allow the core code to get at the port directly

> * ->open()/->close()/->hungup() simply call tty_port_...()
> [BTW, is there any reason why you do not set ->driver_data to port and
> use container_of() in the places that want other parts of containing

See aboe comment.. that's also the way I've been thinking.

> * removal does tty_unregister_device() + prevents ->install() from
> finding it + (under port->mutex) does tty_hangup() on associated tty (if any).
> BTW, I really don't like the look of that place - tty_hangup() is async
> (otherwise it'd deadlock instantly), so what the devil is protecting tty
> from being freed before __tty_hangup() is done with it? And when should

Nothing. However the locking is unfixable in this area until we've
removed the big tty mutex. It's a known problem. I've killed the big tty
mutex in the console layer this -next so we are inching in the right
direction. Once the BTM has gone we can actually fix the unplug race.

> * ->activate() plays strange games with TTY_IO_ERROR; why do we
> bother, seeing that it's under port->mutex and anybody trying to open the
> same tty will wait anyway?

The historic code used to do this and some of our drivers are not fully
converted over so still expect that pattern of behaviour in a few spots.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at