From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: tty_lock held during transmit wait in close: still unresolved
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:53:17 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.37; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Andreas Bombe <aeb@debian.org>, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com, jirislaby@gmail.com
References: <20110527004104.GB4369@amos.fritz.box> <1306498305-5486-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1306498305-5486-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201105271553.18132.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 812
Lines: 17

On Friday 27 May 2011, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Actually the best would be to get rid of tty_lock completely. Here I
> have a patch removing tty_lock from wait_until_sent path. I've been
> using a kernel with the patch applied for about month without any
> problems. But I have only 8250-based serial.

I agree that this would be the best option. The only reason I had
for holding the tty_lock in wait_until_sent is that it the BKL
has been held there tradiditonally. I could not find anything that
would break without holding it, but I also didn't look very hard.

	Arnd
--
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/