On Sul, 2005-01-23 at 18:22, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I think it's only the tty_ldisc_ref_wait() thing that can deadlock (and > even that is likely safe if you just specify an order - "masters first" or > something). Adding a nonblocking "tty_ldisc_ref()" looks safe, ie > something like the appended.
Yes. > This has the problem (apart from the fact that it's obviously totally > untested ;) that it looks like every single pty function would need to do > it, so it would be nicer if "tty_ldisc_ref_wait()" would just always get > both references (ie do the ordering). Alan? Almost every user of tty_ldisc_ref_* doesn't need to lock two objects and the code at that layer has no knowledge of pty/tty pairs. The needed info is exposed however in order to do this since the tty knows if its a tty/pty pair. I'll take a look - chances are it can be buried in tty_ldisc_ref. I'm dubious this is the actual bug although vhangup on a pty might trigger it I guess. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
