From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758171AbcDADt3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:49:29 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:60072 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754864AbcDADt1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:49:27 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Qfz9tSB3JM9fv+d/mRC1oV9oemQr10k66jRo1xreo2vD 1459482566 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:49:24 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Peter Hurley Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next , Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree Message-ID: <20160401034924.GA30788@kroah.com> References: <20160208131629.20a16097@canb.auug.org.au> <20160208022152.GA21591@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 05:23:27PM -0700, Peter Hurley wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Greg KH 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