Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] tty_port: allow a port to be opened with a tty that has no file handle
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Thu Jan 19 2017 - 08:37:17 EST
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:54:29PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Let us create tty objects entirely in kernel space. Untested proposal to
> show why all the ideas around rewriting half the uart stack are not needed.
>
> With this a kernel created non file backed tty object could be used to handle
> data, and set terminal modes. Not all ldiscs can cope with this as N_TTY in
> particular has to work back to the fs/tty layer.
>
> The tty_port code is however otherwise clean of file handles as far as I can
> tell as is the low level tty port write path used by the ldisc, the
> configuration low level interfaces and most of the ldiscs.
>
> Currently you don't have any exposure to see tty hangups because those are
> built around the file layer. However a) it's a fixed port so you probably
> don't care about that b) if you do we can add a callback and c) you almost
> certainly don't want the userspace tear down/rebuild behaviour anyway.
>
> This should however be sufficient if we wanted for example to enumerate all
> the bluetooth bound fixed ports via ACPI and make them directly available.
> It doesn't deal with the case of a user opening a port that's also kernel
> opened and that would need some locking out (so it returned EBUSY if bound
> to a kernel device of some kind). That needs resolving along with how you
> "up" or "down" your new bluetooth device, or enumerate it while providing
> the existing tty API to avoid regressions (and to debug).
>
> Alan
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-By: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Alan, Need your SoB here.
Rob, as this patch is flowing through you, I need your signed-off-by as
well if I am to take it.
thanks,
greg k-h