From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty/n_hdlc: fix sleep in !TASK_RUNNING state warning
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 05:57:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <348A9E34-49C4-4A08-BBA2-46D677F50534@microgate.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0a70193b-488a-7607-4ad5-05ec6018587e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 2:23 AM, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> But why not to clarify what are appropriate sanity checks?
> ...
> want a cleanup for scripts/checkpatch.pl .
These are good goals. I avoid purely cosmetic patches. I do not object to cosmetic patches from others that do not change behavior.
The checks that concern you deal with changing tty line disciplines. Dealing with line discipline changes has been an ongoing issue since n_hdlc was derived from other line disciplines 20 years ago, with major overhauls along the way. It is complex: driver layers shifting during operation while dealing properly with opens, closes, hangups, and sleeping operations. Patches have been added to the latest unreleased kernel to address line discipline changes, it is still evolving.
Why are the existing line discipline checks in n_hdlc where they are? Becasue that’s how they evolved from where they started to accomodate these changes. There are not many and their function is known: has the line discipline changed at that point? I know that is not satisfying but coming up with a definitive comment saying a check is absolutely required in one place and not in another requires more insight into the long history of a moving target than I have. Without that insight I would not alter existing checks in code that is not causing problems.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-04 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-29 0:41 WARNING in __might_sleep (2) syzbot
2018-12-29 11:48 ` [PATCH] tty/n_hdlc: fix sleep in !TASK_RUNNING state warning Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-01 3:13 ` Paul Fulghum
2019-01-01 20:28 ` [PATCH] tty/n_hdlc: fix __might_sleep warning Paul Fulghum
2019-01-10 11:38 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-10 12:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
[not found] ` <FEBFE826-8D27-4A0B-86A5-BA559921CADC@microgate.com>
2019-01-02 15:04 ` [PATCH] tty/n_hdlc: fix sleep in !TASK_RUNNING state warning Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-02 20:55 ` Paul Fulghum
2019-01-03 9:09 ` Jiri Slaby
2019-01-03 11:32 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-03 15:57 ` Paul Fulghum
2019-01-04 10:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-04 13:57 ` Paul Fulghum [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=348A9E34-49C4-4A08-BBA2-46D677F50534@microgate.com \
--to=paulkf@microgate.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.