From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751527AbdGQWFc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:05:32 -0400
Received: from www.llwyncelyn.cymru ([82.70.14.225]:39750 "EHLO fuzix.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751318AbdGQWFb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:05:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:04:38 +0100
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Okash Khawaja <okash.khawaja@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>,
        Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>,
        Chris Brannon <chris@the-brannons.com>, Kirk Reiser <kirk@reisers.ca>,
        "speakup@linux-speakup.org" <speakup@linux-speakup.org>,
        "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Re: tty contention resulting from
 tty_open_by_device export
Message-ID: <20170717230438.5c3bd397@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <3E107A3D-D8E2-43E5-8DCB-F9DE2F5AAAEA@gmail.com>
References: <20170708083803.GA23080@kroah.com>
        <20170709114153.157783481@gmail.com>
        <20170710125233.2006733e@alans-desktop>
        <20170710123307.GA777@sanghar>
        <20170712192028.70bc0d54@alans-desktop>
        <20170713112954.GA665@sanghar>
        <20170717123145.GE24503@kroah.com>
        <3E107A3D-D8E2-43E5-8DCB-F9DE2F5AAAEA@gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> Sure. I can fix the tty->count mismatch based on Alan's suggestion. However I don't understand why the exclusivity flag should belong to tty_port and not tty_struct. It will be good to know why. 

We are trying to move all the flags that we can and structs into the
tty_port, except any that are used internally within the struct tty
level code. The main reason for this is to make the object lifetimes and
locking simpler - because the tty_port lasts for the time the hardware is
present.

Alan