On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Gianluca Anzolin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:34:12PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > > > > This solution is acceptable to me, but I think the comment should briefly > > explain why this fix is necessary, and the changelog should explain why in > > detail. > > > > Perhaps with a fixme comment that rfcomm_tty_install() should just take over > > the port reference (instead of adding one) and rfcomm_tty_cleanup() should > > conditionally release on RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP. > > > > Because then: > > 1) this fix would not be necessary. > > 2) the release in rfcomm_tty_hangup() would not be necessary > > 3) the second release in rfcomm_release_dev would not be necessary > > 4) the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit could be removed > > > > > > Regards, > > Peter Hurley > > Taking over the refcount in the install method would certainly look better. > I'm > going to test it ASAP :D > > But why getting rid of the release in in rfcomm_tty_hangup()? > We could lose the bluetooth connection at any time and the dlc callback > would have to hangup the tty (and release the port if necessary). > > Also the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit should still be necessary if the port is > created without the RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP flag. > > Besides any process could release the port behind us (with the command rfcomm > release rfcomm1 for example). > > Gianluca
Nevermind I figured it out the reason... -- 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/
