Hi Greg,
After merging the tty tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
failed like this:
drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c: In function 'update_tty_status':
drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c:94:11: error: 'struct tty_struct' has no member named 'warned'
Caused by commit 6865ff222cca ("TTY: do not warn about setting speed via
SPD_*").
drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the file).
I have used the tty tree from next-20130319 for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi,
On 03/20/2013 04:12 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c: In function 'update_tty_status':
> drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c:94:11: error: 'struct tty_struct'
> has no member named 'warned'
>
> Caused by commit 6865ff222cca ("TTY: do not warn about setting
> speed via SPD_*").
I wonder why this didn't trigger locally. I have to check if I have
debugfs enabled. In any way, I will send a patch to fix this later today.
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct
> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct
> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
>
> Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
> is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the
> file).
I think this is caused by another commit. Bill added a check for
is_open meanwhile I removed that member completely. Bill, could you
fix that up, please?
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Jiri Slaby writes:
>
> > drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
> > drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct
> > qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> > drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct
> > qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> >
> > Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
> > is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the
> > file).
>
> I think this is caused by another commit. Bill added a check for
> is_open meanwhile I removed that member completely. Bill, could you
> fix that up, please?
>
Is it legal to call tty_flip_buffer_push() without an open tty? If
so, I can get rid of the is_open logic completely. Otherwise, I need
to either keep is_open or otherwise check for a valid tty before
calling tty_flip_buffer_push().
--
Bill
On 03/20/2013 01:51 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> Jiri Slaby writes:
>>
>>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
>>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct
>>> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
>>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct
>>> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
>>>
>>> Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
>>> is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the
>>> file).
>>
>> I think this is caused by another commit. Bill added a check for
>> is_open meanwhile I removed that member completely. Bill, could you
>> fix that up, please?
>>
>
> Is it legal to call tty_flip_buffer_push() without an open tty? If
> so, I can get rid of the is_open logic completely. Otherwise, I need
> to either keep is_open or otherwise check for a valid tty before
> calling tty_flip_buffer_push().
Yeah, it is legal to call that, as long as you have a valid tty_port.
Now, the data are queued and later flushed. The plan is to throw the
data directly on ingress in a way the drivers don't need to care.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Jiri Slaby writes:
>
> On 03/20/2013 01:51 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > Jiri Slaby writes:
> >>
> >>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
> >>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct
> >>> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> >>> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct
> >>> qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> >>>
> >>> Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
> >>> is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the
> >>> file).
> >>
> >> I think this is caused by another commit. Bill added a check for
> >> is_open meanwhile I removed that member completely. Bill, could you
> >> fix that up, please?
> >>
> >
> > Is it legal to call tty_flip_buffer_push() without an open tty? If
> > so, I can get rid of the is_open logic completely. Otherwise, I need
> > to either keep is_open or otherwise check for a valid tty before
> > calling tty_flip_buffer_push().
>
> Yeah, it is legal to call that, as long as you have a valid tty_port.
> Now, the data are queued and later flushed. The plan is to throw the
> data directly on ingress in a way the drivers don't need to care.
>
Ok, for the unopened ports there *should* never be any actual data to
push so the push is really doing nothing anyhow in these cases. It's
coming from the device sending an initial change port command.
Anyhow, so my patch adding more is_open logic can be dropped and then
yours will apply fine. What's the best way for me to handle this?
Send a revert for my patch so yours will apply or send an updated
version of your patch that removes my additions?
--
Bill
Jiri Slaby writes:
>
> On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > Ok, for the unopened ports there *should* never be any actual data to
> > push so the push is really doing nothing anyhow in these cases. It's
> > coming from the device sending an initial change port command.
> >
> > Anyhow, so my patch adding more is_open logic can be dropped and then
> > yours will apply fine. What's the best way for me to handle this?
> > Send a revert for my patch so yours will apply or send an updated
> > version of your patch that removes my additions?
>
> Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
>
"USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
--
Bill
On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> Ok, for the unopened ports there *should* never be any actual data to
> push so the push is really doing nothing anyhow in these cases. It's
> coming from the device sending an initial change port command.
>
> Anyhow, so my patch adding more is_open logic can be dropped and then
> yours will apply fine. What's the best way for me to handle this?
> Send a revert for my patch so yours will apply or send an updated
> version of your patch that removes my additions?
Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
--
js
suse labs
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> Jiri Slaby writes:
> >
> > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > Ok, for the unopened ports there *should* never be any actual data to
> > > push so the push is really doing nothing anyhow in these cases. It's
> > > coming from the device sending an initial change port command.
> > >
> > > Anyhow, so my patch adding more is_open logic can be dropped and then
> > > yours will apply fine. What's the best way for me to handle this?
> > > Send a revert for my patch so yours will apply or send an updated
> > > version of your patch that removes my additions?
> >
> > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
> >
>
> "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
> 27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
I've now reverted this, so it should be ok.
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:12:11 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> After merging the tty tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c: In function 'update_tty_status':
> drivers/net/caif/caif_serial.c:94:11: error: 'struct tty_struct' has no member named 'warned'
>
> Caused by commit 6865ff222cca ("TTY: do not warn about setting speed via
> SPD_*").
I still have this error today so have still used the tty tree from
next-20130319.
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c: In function 'qt2_process_read_urb':
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:661:18: error: 'struct qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
> drivers/usb/serial/quatech2.c:705:15: error: 'struct qt2_port_private' has no member named 'is_open'
>
> Caused by commit e4408ce3c23f ("TTY: quatech2, remove unneeded
> is_open"). grep is your friend (or searching while editting the file).
As has been reported, this one is fixed by reverting commit 27b351c "USB:
quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open".
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Greg,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > Jiri Slaby writes:
> > >
> > > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > >
> > > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> > > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> > > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
> >
> > "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
> > 27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
>
> I've now reverted this, so it should be ok.
That patch needed to be reverted in your tty tree, not your usb tree
since it breaks a patch added to your tty tree (see Subject).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Greg,
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:54:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > Jiri Slaby writes:
> > > >
> > > > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> > > > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> > > > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
> > >
> > > "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
> > > 27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
> >
> > I've now reverted this, so it should be ok.
>
> That patch needed to be reverted in your tty tree, not your usb tree
> since it breaks a patch added to your tty tree (see Subject).
Except, of course, commit 27b351c is not in your tty tree :-(
I will continue to carry a revert of 27b351c as a merge fix for when I
merge the tty tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:54:23AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > Jiri Slaby writes:
> > > >
> > > > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> > > > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> > > > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
> > >
> > > "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
> > > 27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
> >
> > I've now reverted this, so it should be ok.
>
> That patch needed to be reverted in your tty tree, not your usb tree
> since it breaks a patch added to your tty tree (see Subject).
Ah, ok, I've done that now, sorry for the confusion.
greg k-h
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:28:08AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:54:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:16:28 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > > Jiri Slaby writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/20/2013 03:42 PM, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Asking Greg to revert should suffice. I commented on that patch, but in
> > > > > a different thread, so Greg missed the comment the patch is not needed
> > > > > IIRC. What was the title of the patch, I cannot find it immediately :/?
> > > >
> > > > "USB: quatech2: only write to the tty if the port is open." (commit
> > > > 27b351c in v3.9-rc3).
> > >
> > > I've now reverted this, so it should be ok.
> >
> > That patch needed to be reverted in your tty tree, not your usb tree
> > since it breaks a patch added to your tty tree (see Subject).
>
> Except, of course, commit 27b351c is not in your tty tree :-(
Which was causing me lots of confusion :)
I've merged it in there now, and reverted it, so all should be good.
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:47:24 -0700 Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:28:08AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Except, of course, commit 27b351c is not in your tty tree :-(
>
> Which was causing me lots of confusion :)
>
> I've merged it in there now, and reverted it, so all should be good.
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]