Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263983AbTFDTnG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:43:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263987AbTFDTnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:43:05 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:28935 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263983AbTFDTnD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:43:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "P. Benie" cc: Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 714 Lines: 19 On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, P. Benie wrote: > > The problem isn't to do with large writes. It's to do with any sequence of > writes that fills up the receive buffer, which is only 4K for N_TTY. If > the receiving program is suspended, the buffer will fill sooner or later. Well, even then we could just drop the "write_atomic" lock. The thing is, I don't know what the tty atomicity guarantees are. I know what they are for pipes (quite reasonable), but tty's? Linus - 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/