On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:43 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:14:56PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:52 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Yes, I did. First, the order should not matter for blocked opens as they
> > > will exit their wait loops based on
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:14:56PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:52 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> > > port->count = 0;
> > > port-
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:52 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> > port->count = 0;
> > port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
> > - if (port->tty) {
> > + i
Hi Jiri,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:02:44PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 09:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > Just wanted to make sure you saw this series.
>
> Hi, thanks for letting me know. Johan, care to CC Alan Cox and me (or at
> least LKML) when you're changing th
On 03/05/2013 11:32 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> So I'm thinking about
>> something like this:
>>
>> if (port->tty)
>>set_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &port->tty->flags);
>> tty = port->tty; <=== take a snapshot
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
>> tty_port_shutdown(port, tty); <=== use the sn
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 23:10 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 11:02 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> spin_
On 03/05/2013 11:02 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
port->count = 0;
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> >> port->count = 0;
> >> port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTI
On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
>> port->count = 0;
>> port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
>> - if (port->tty) {
>> + if (port->tty)
>>
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 17:02 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 09:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > Hi Jiri,
> >
> > Just wanted to make sure you saw this series.
>
> Hi, thanks for letting me know. Johan, care to CC Alan Cox and me (or at
> least LKML) when you're changing the TTY core next t
On 02/28/2013 09:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> Just wanted to make sure you saw this series.
Hi, thanks for letting me know. Johan, care to CC Alan Cox and me (or at
least LKML) when you're changing the TTY core next time?
I have a couple of questions for 2/4:
> Move HUPCL handling
11 matches
Mail list logo
