Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:14:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:14:40 -0500 Received: from www.transvirtual.com ([206.14.214.140]:54024 "EHLO www.transvirtual.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:14:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:14:04 -0800 (PST) From: James Simmons To: Russell King cc: Robert Love , Alex Khripin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BKL in tty code? In-Reply-To: <20020130230532.I19292@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> 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 > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:58:29PM -0800, James Simmons wrote: > > All the locking should be moved to the upper tty layers. Why implement the > > wheel over and over agin for each type of tty device. > > By that statement, I can see that you haven't really done any analysis of > the tty nor serial locking. Its not a simple case of "just add a per tty > semaphore in the tty layer and everything will be fine". I have to say no. I have been to busy cleaning up the fbdev layer right now. What I have done is work on a way to haev each console device have its own lock and then share that with struct tty_driver to protect hardware access. This is just the first step. I knew the tty layer would require more than just that. Since I haven't had time to look at all the details I'm curious to what you have discovered. I still believe that locking could be moved to the upper layer tho. I don't see why not. - 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/