Re: Killing the tty lock

[Greg KH]

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> This is a first stab at it by making the lock per tty and using tty_mutex
> to cover the lookup for now. We ought to move to the lookup handing back
> ttys with a ref but thats a further step.
> 
> It seems to mostly work but not quite reliably, so coul do with some more
> eyes and review for ideas.

It's mostly pretty "sane", but what is this:

> +/*
> + * Getting the big tty mutex for a pair of ttys with lock ordering
> + * On a non pty/tty pair tty2 can be NULL which is just fine.
> + */
> +void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> +					struct tty_struct *tty2)
> +{
> +	if (tty < tty2) {
> +		tty_lock(tty);
> +		tty_lock(tty2);
> +	} else {
> +		if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> +			tty_lock(tty2);
> +		tty_lock(tty);
> +	}
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock_pair);
> +
> +void __lockfunc tty_unlock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
> +						struct tty_struct *tty2)
> +{
> +	tty_unlock(tty);
> +	if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> +		tty_unlock(tty2);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_unlock_pair);

for?

And what's with the comparing of pointers as "<"?  How portable is that
really, and how are we supposed to control the memory location of these
structures?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/