Re: [PATCH -next 11/27] tty: Don't release tty locks for wait queue sanity check

2014-10-23 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> (and -- don't laugh -- explore why printk disables interrupts and prevents > cpu migration while calling the console drivers. Seems ok to me...) It disables interrupts so that the chance of the oops getting out is maximised, it locks down some of the other bits to try and stop interleaved oopses

Re: [PATCH -next 11/27] tty: Don't release tty locks for wait queue sanity check

2014-10-22 Thread Peter Hurley
On 10/22/2014 11:29 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: >> However, without needing the global tty_mutex held, the tty locks for >> the releasing tty can now be held through the sleep. The sanity check >> is for abnormal conditions caused by kernel bugs, not for recoverable >> errors caused by misbehavi

Re: [PATCH -next 11/27] tty: Don't release tty locks for wait queue sanity check

2014-10-22 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> However, without needing the global tty_mutex held, the tty locks for > the releasing tty can now be held through the sleep. The sanity check > is for abnormal conditions caused by kernel bugs, not for recoverable > errors caused by misbehaving userspace; dropping the tty locks only > allows the

[PATCH -next 11/27] tty: Don't release tty locks for wait queue sanity check

2014-10-16 Thread Peter Hurley
Releasing the tty locks while waiting for the tty wait queues to be empty is no longer necessary nor desirable. Prior to "tty: Don't take tty_mutex for tty count changes", dropping the tty locks was necessary to reestablish the correct lock order between tty_mutex and the tty locks. Dropping the gl