Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1368899 > unrolled thread

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree

Started byPeter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
First post2016-04-01 02:30 +0200
Last post2016-04-01 05:50 +0200
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> - 2016-04-01 02:30 +0200
    [PATCH] tty: Fix merge of "tty: Refactor tty_open()" Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> - 2016-04-01 02:50 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current  tree Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2016-04-01 05:50 +0200

#1368899 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree

FromPeter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Date2016-04-01 02:30 +0200
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree
Message-ID<riV8m-4z1-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:16:29PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tty tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   e9036d066236 ("tty: Drop krefs for interrupted tty lock")
>>
>> from the tty.current tree and commit:
>>
>>   d6203d0c7b73 ("tty: Refactor tty_open()")
>>
>> from the tty tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
>> (no action is required).
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> index a7eacef1bd22,8d26ed79bb4c..000000000000
>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> @@@ -2004,6 -2009,69 +2009,68 @@@ static struct tty_driver *tty_lookup_dr
>>   }
>>
>>   /**
>> +  *  tty_open_by_driver      -       open a tty device
>> +  *  @device: dev_t of device to open
>> +  *  @inode: inode of device file
>> +  *  @filp: file pointer to tty
>> +  *
>> +  *  Performs the driver lookup, checks for a reopen, or otherwise
>> +  *  performs the first-time tty initialization.
>> +  *
>> +  *  Returns the locked initialized or re-opened &tty_struct
>> +  *
>> +  *  Claims the global tty_mutex to serialize:
>> +  *    - concurrent first-time tty initialization
>> +  *    - concurrent tty driver removal w/ lookup
>> +  *    - concurrent tty removal from driver table
>> +  */
>> + static struct tty_struct *tty_open_by_driver(dev_t device, struct inode *inode,
>> +                                          struct file *filp)
>> + {
>> +     struct tty_struct *tty;
>> +     struct tty_driver *driver = NULL;
>> +     int index = -1;
>> +     int retval;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
>> +     driver = tty_lookup_driver(device, filp, &index);
>> +     if (IS_ERR(driver)) {
>> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> +             return ERR_CAST(driver);
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     /* check whether we're reopening an existing tty */
>> +     tty = tty_driver_lookup_tty(driver, inode, index);
>> +     if (IS_ERR(tty)) {
>> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> +             goto out;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     if (tty) {
>> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> +             retval = tty_lock_interruptible(tty);
>> ++            tty_kref_put(tty);  /* drop kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
>> +             if (retval) {
>> +                     if (retval == -EINTR)
>> +                             retval = -ERESTARTSYS;
>> +                     tty = ERR_PTR(retval);
>> +                     goto out;
>> +             }
>>  -            /* safe to drop the kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
>>  -            tty_kref_put(tty);
>> +             retval = tty_reopen(tty);
>> +             if (retval < 0) {
>> +                     tty_unlock(tty);
>> +                     tty = ERR_PTR(retval);
>> +             }
>> +     } else { /* Returns with the tty_lock held for now */
>> +             tty = tty_init_dev(driver, index);
>> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> +     }
>> + out:
>> +     tty_driver_kref_put(driver);
>> +     return tty;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /**
>>    *  tty_open                -       open a tty device
>>    *  @inode: inode of device file
>>    *  @filp: file pointer to tty
>
> Peter warned me this was going to happen...
>
> Peter, is the merge above correct?

Greg, this merge correction did not make it into 4.6-rc1.

Was I supposed to send a separate patch for this merge change?
Should I now?

Regards,
Peter Hurley

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1368916 — [PATCH] tty: Fix merge of "tty: Refactor tty_open()"

FromPeter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Date2016-04-01 02:50 +0200
Subject[PATCH] tty: Fix merge of "tty: Refactor tty_open()"
Message-ID<riVrI-4Iz-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1368899
Commit e9036d066236 ("tty: Drop krefs for interrupted tty lock")
fixed a tty reference counting problem introduced in
commit 0bfd464d3fdd ("tty: Wait interruptibly for tty lock on reopen"),
so v4.5.0 is correct.

However, commit d6203d0c7b73 ("tty: Refactor tty_open()") moved the
relevant code for 4.6-rc1; correct the merge.

Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
---
 drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
index 8d26ed7..c14c45f 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
@@ -2049,14 +2049,13 @@ static struct tty_struct *tty_open_by_driver(dev_t device, struct inode *inode,
 	if (tty) {
 		mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
 		retval = tty_lock_interruptible(tty);
+		tty_kref_put(tty);  /* drop kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
 		if (retval) {
 			if (retval == -EINTR)
 				retval = -ERESTARTSYS;
 			tty = ERR_PTR(retval);
 			goto out;
 		}
-		/* safe to drop the kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
-		tty_kref_put(tty);
 		retval = tty_reopen(tty);
 		if (retval < 0) {
 			tty_unlock(tty);
-- 
2.8.0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1368990 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree

FromGreg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Date2016-04-01 05:50 +0200
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree
Message-ID<riYfU-6VQ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1368899
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:23:27PM -0700, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:16:29PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the tty tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>   drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >>   e9036d066236 ("tty: Drop krefs for interrupted tty lock")
> >>
> >> from the tty.current tree and commit:
> >>
> >>   d6203d0c7b73 ("tty: Refactor tty_open()")
> >>
> >> from the tty tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell
> >>
> >> diff --cc drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> >> index a7eacef1bd22,8d26ed79bb4c..000000000000
> >> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> >> @@@ -2004,6 -2009,69 +2009,68 @@@ static struct tty_driver *tty_lookup_dr
> >>   }
> >>
> >>   /**
> >> +  *  tty_open_by_driver      -       open a tty device
> >> +  *  @device: dev_t of device to open
> >> +  *  @inode: inode of device file
> >> +  *  @filp: file pointer to tty
> >> +  *
> >> +  *  Performs the driver lookup, checks for a reopen, or otherwise
> >> +  *  performs the first-time tty initialization.
> >> +  *
> >> +  *  Returns the locked initialized or re-opened &tty_struct
> >> +  *
> >> +  *  Claims the global tty_mutex to serialize:
> >> +  *    - concurrent first-time tty initialization
> >> +  *    - concurrent tty driver removal w/ lookup
> >> +  *    - concurrent tty removal from driver table
> >> +  */
> >> + static struct tty_struct *tty_open_by_driver(dev_t device, struct inode *inode,
> >> +                                          struct file *filp)
> >> + {
> >> +     struct tty_struct *tty;
> >> +     struct tty_driver *driver = NULL;
> >> +     int index = -1;
> >> +     int retval;
> >> +
> >> +     mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
> >> +     driver = tty_lookup_driver(device, filp, &index);
> >> +     if (IS_ERR(driver)) {
> >> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
> >> +             return ERR_CAST(driver);
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     /* check whether we're reopening an existing tty */
> >> +     tty = tty_driver_lookup_tty(driver, inode, index);
> >> +     if (IS_ERR(tty)) {
> >> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
> >> +             goto out;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     if (tty) {
> >> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
> >> +             retval = tty_lock_interruptible(tty);
> >> ++            tty_kref_put(tty);  /* drop kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
> >> +             if (retval) {
> >> +                     if (retval == -EINTR)
> >> +                             retval = -ERESTARTSYS;
> >> +                     tty = ERR_PTR(retval);
> >> +                     goto out;
> >> +             }
> >>  -            /* safe to drop the kref from tty_driver_lookup_tty() */
> >>  -            tty_kref_put(tty);
> >> +             retval = tty_reopen(tty);
> >> +             if (retval < 0) {
> >> +                     tty_unlock(tty);
> >> +                     tty = ERR_PTR(retval);
> >> +             }
> >> +     } else { /* Returns with the tty_lock held for now */
> >> +             tty = tty_init_dev(driver, index);
> >> +             mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
> >> +     }
> >> + out:
> >> +     tty_driver_kref_put(driver);
> >> +     return tty;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /**
> >>    *  tty_open                -       open a tty device
> >>    *  @inode: inode of device file
> >>    *  @filp: file pointer to tty
> >
> > Peter warned me this was going to happen...
> >
> > Peter, is the merge above correct?
> 
> Greg, this merge correction did not make it into 4.6-rc1.
> 
> Was I supposed to send a separate patch for this merge change?
> Should I now?

The patch you sent should be fine, thanks.

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web