Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 02:49:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 02:49:20 -0400 Received: from 12-231-242-11.client.attbi.com ([12.231.242.11]:35851 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 02:49:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:52:09 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Martin Diehl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: calling context when writing to tty_driver Message-ID: <20021003065209.GA18481@kroah.com> References: <20021001183400.GA8959@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1195 Lines: 27 On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:10:34PM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote: > > Another question/suggestion: do we need to acquire port->sem in usbserial? > Couldn't this be done with a spinlock - at least when called from_user? It used to be a spinlock, but too many drivers did bad things with the spinlock held, so I changed it to a semaphore so they could sleep while it is held. I think in 2.5, all of the nasty drivers can be easily fixed (the usb core now can be told not to sleep when submitting an urb), so this might be able to be changed back to a spinlock. > If we agree serial drivers shouldn't sleep in write_room()/write() my > impression is this needs to be addressed somehow, regardless whether > usbserial uses the new serial core or not. Anybody tried this with a > bluetooth dongle over usbserial? I don't know, do we agree that you can't sleep in those functions? If so, I'll look into fixing the usbserial drivers up. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/