Re: [REGRESSION] rfcomm (userland) broken by commit 29cd718b
From: Gianluca Anzolin
Date: Mon Dec 16 2013 - 15:27:35 EST
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Gianluca Anzolin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:34:12PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >
> > This solution is acceptable to me, but I think the comment should briefly
> > explain why this fix is necessary, and the changelog should explain why in detail.
> >
> > Perhaps with a fixme comment that rfcomm_tty_install() should just take over
> > the port reference (instead of adding one) and rfcomm_tty_cleanup() should
> > conditionally release on RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP.
> >
> > Because then:
> > 1) this fix would not be necessary.
> > 2) the release in rfcomm_tty_hangup() would not be necessary
> > 3) the second release in rfcomm_release_dev would not be necessary
> > 4) the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit could be removed
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter Hurley
>
> Taking over the refcount in the install method would certainly look better. I'm
> going to test it ASAP :D
>
> But why getting rid of the release in in rfcomm_tty_hangup()?
> We could lose the bluetooth connection at any time and the dlc callback
> would have to hangup the tty (and release the port if necessary).
>
> Also the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit should still be necessary if the port is
> created without the RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP flag.
>
> Besides any process could release the port behind us (with the command rfcomm
> release rfcomm1 for example).
>
> Gianluca
Nevermind I figured it out the reason...
--
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/