From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753578AbZIEWq4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:46:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753492AbZIEWqz (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:46:55 -0400 Received: from mail.parknet.ad.jp ([210.171.162.6]:44277 "EHLO mail.officemail.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753392AbZIEWqy (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:46:54 -0400 From: OGAWA Hirofumi To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Mikael Pettersson , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Alan Cox , Greg KH , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Bug #14015] pty regressed again, breaking expect and gcc's testsuite References: <19099.52899.620345.326521@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <19100.31254.666066.755541@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <200909012042.59856.rjw@sisk.pl> <19105.5352.28380.230615@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <87pra55nsr.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20090905225642.79251527@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 07:46:51 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20090905225642.79251527@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (Alan Cox's message of "Sat, 5 Sep 2009 22:56:42 +0100") Message-ID: <87y6ot3t7o.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox writes: >> So, it will use the 64kb limit at least few paths, and I'm not sure >> though, non-n_tty path (e.g. ppp) doesn't use tty_write_room() check >> always. It may not be consistent if we removed pty_space() in pty_write(). > > The correct behaviour for most network protocols to overflow is to drop > packets so the behaviour of not checking was intentional. I see. I meant, ppp doesn't check (64kb) on write, but post-process(?) checks (8kb). If there is this situation, I just worried it becomes the cause of wrong behavior. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: OGAWA Hirofumi Subject: Re: [Bug #14015] pty regressed again, breaking expect and gcc's testsuite Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 07:46:51 +0900 Message-ID: <87y6ot3t7o.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <19099.52899.620345.326521@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <19100.31254.666066.755541@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <200909012042.59856.rjw@sisk.pl> <19105.5352.28380.230615@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <87pra55nsr.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20090905225642.79251527@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090905225642.79251527-qBU/x9rampVanCEyBjwyrvXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> (Alan Cox's message of "Sat, 5 Sep 2009 22:56:42 +0100") Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Mikael Pettersson , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Alan Cox , Greg KH , Andrew Morton Alan Cox writes: >> So, it will use the 64kb limit at least few paths, and I'm not sure >> though, non-n_tty path (e.g. ppp) doesn't use tty_write_room() check >> always. It may not be consistent if we removed pty_space() in pty_write(). > > The correct behaviour for most network protocols to overflow is to drop > packets so the behaviour of not checking was intentional. I see. I meant, ppp doesn't check (64kb) on write, but post-process(?) checks (8kb). If there is this situation, I just worried it becomes the cause of wrong behavior. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi