From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C764CC433E0 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE38206F6 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388276AbhAURgs (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:36:48 -0500 Received: from mickerik.phytec.de ([195.145.39.210]:62572 "EHLO mickerik.phytec.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388287AbhAUREm (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:04:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=phytec.de; s=a1; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@phytec.de; t=1611248608; x=1613840608; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=YSQ8bIE/FqlREHebkRMC1psz35uHM7Hc1hMo8mYgJ/M=; b=eILpc1bOsJTiQLPJ/Fh697ksm6N8RJ179MsE9vQHGIsYPwj/QpA1bZA0NHHE4xOm qZoCiXD582ik0E0N3Gy0oF88mw7DW/zjf0F5MpV70VrIciJ540Dgywb0EQZskZBn mXRBsrySfmnEMsaXA4I8PdYDrV0RU4m6d9RKtgBlyRU=; X-AuditID: c39127d2-0d3b770000001c86-30-6009b3e0f3ec Received: from Florix.phytec.de (florix.phytec.de [172.16.0.118]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mickerik.phytec.de (PHYTEC Mail Gateway) with SMTP id 21.AA.07302.0E3B9006; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.16.21.73] (172.16.0.116) by Florix.phytec.de (172.16.0.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1779.2; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Splicing to/from a tty To: Linus Torvalds , Oliver Giles CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , Jiri Slaby References: From: Robert Karszniewicz Message-ID: <54108069-3ef4-c02f-b824-d24da79e0009@phytec.de> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.16.0.116] X-ClientProxiedBy: Berlix.phytec.de (172.16.0.117) To Florix.phytec.de (172.16.0.118) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42JZI8BQpvtgM2eCwfltxhbNi9ezWaxcfZTJ 4t1cGYvLu+awWfSu2shq8ajvLbvF+b/HWR3YPXbOusvusWlVJ5vHiRm/WTz2z13D7rH7ZgOb x+dNch6bnrxlCmCP4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MrY++opY8Fl1opTf56wNDBuZuli5OCQEDCRmDHJ pYuRi0NIYBmTROvSbiYI5z6jxLWN7exdjJwcwgLKEhO757GA2CICERJrzpxkByliFrjOKHHp +hQmkISQwG5GifMT4kFsNqCpu5tvMYPYvAI2EhMbf4E1swioSiy71sIKYosCDWrt64SqEZQ4 OfMJWA2nQKDElF3tjCDXMQtoSqzfpQ8SZhYQl7j1ZD4ThC0vsf3tHGaItaoSp9teg8UlBBQk 5v6eyAxhh0vcPrqWdQKj8CwkG2YhTJ2FZOosJFMXMLKsYhTKzUzOTi3KzNYryKgsSU3WS0nd xAiMp8MT1S/tYOyb43GIkYmD8RCjBAezkgjvI0uOBCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8 G3hLwoQE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MiVMOXOZlbrsVZX9oYumVk8/+iczdW1sR+fS563HB si03AvNuVThPTfqg5GdTflpa8uw0Q+5bUjJhGUzzubuuZxjFvHmXHnBx046eOw8+LA71YE3K /rzS6LHfYv7z2ydbqx7WzLfvjqyRa4iS/24ROPWr282eNfasli/fyf/SUlrQKvTrckyFEktx RqKhFnNRcSIAu3KPt5UCAAA= Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/20/21 5:44 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:29 PM Oliver Giles wrote: >> >> Writing this from a kernel with those patches in; happily splice()ing >> to and from a pty. > > Ok, good. > > I have a couple of improvement patches on top of those, that I'm attaching here. > > [...] > > But in the meantime, here's two more patches to try on top of the > previous four. They shouldn't matter, other than making the non-icanon > throughput a lot better. But the more coverage they get, the happier > I'll be. I confirm that the 4 patches, as well as the 4+2 patches, fix the regression I noticed with cat failing on sendfile() to ttymxc0. Thanks, Robert