Re: [PATCH 4/5] usb_serial: Kill port mutex

[Alan Cox]

> > It would probably be cleaner if they could lock against each other
> 
> What you mean isn't clear.  After all, open sometimes has to call
> resume.  So how could resume lock against open?

Probably it needs a counting lock as the code is currently structured -
which is a bit ugly. What paths do we end up going through the device
open method into resume in the same thread ?

> Does this imply that unthrottle should try to autoresume?  There does 
> appear to be a potential race between unthrottle and autosuspend.

The more I look at it the more it implies to me that the ldiscs doing
this should instead be taught some better manners instead. The real nasty
is that a driver might not have initialised the locking it needs do that
exclusion until open occurs. I think n_tty is probably the only offender
and if so I'd rather fix that and make it a rule that you don't do that,
trying to fix it other ways is going to be more horrible I imagine.
--
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/