> Should we backport this all the way to v2.6.32 (currently the oldest
> stable tree)?
We need to be able to explain how the case being tested can occur, then
explain the situation in which it actually prevents a race condition.
If nobody can do that then it shouldn't be backported because its change
without value and just risk.
The right fix as far as I can see is to remove the tests although
WARN_ON() combined with your tty->ops change might be safer.
> It's pretty obvious that this should have been part of commit
> f34d7a5b7010 ("tty: The big operations rework"). That being said, these
It ahould probably have been fixed around the same time or in one of the
tty locking reviews, but drivers/isdn and net/irda weren't traditionally
part of the general tty maintenance but handled separately/
> test puzzle me. It's not obvious why they're needed. Ie, can the null
> dereferences they try to catch really happen? But I can try to figure
> out that in the future, if I ever feel the urge to do so. Anyhow:
>
> Acked-by: Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl>
Nacked-by: Alan Cox <a...@linux.intel.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
