Re: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send

2012-12-20 Thread Alan Cox
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:16:10 +0800 Xiao Jin wrote: > From: xiaojin > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send > > All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock, > that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But > we have no tx_lock in

Re: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send

2012-12-20 Thread Alan Cox
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:13:07 + "Xiao, Jin" wrote: > Alan, > > Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm->output is called > by gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock... That would be a bug too or I guess we could finally give in on trying to keep tty write paths not us

RE: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send

2012-12-20 Thread Xiao, Jin
Alan, Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm->output is called by gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock... Best regards, Jin Xiao > From: xiaojin > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send > > All the call to gsm->outp

Re: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send

2012-12-20 Thread Alan Cox
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:38:40 +0800 Xiao Jin wrote: > From: xiaojin > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send > > All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock, > that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But > we have no tx_lock in