From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Hurley Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tty.current tree Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:23:27 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160208131629.20a16097@canb.auug.org.au> <20160208022152.GA21591@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com ([209.85.192.52]:33563 "EHLO mail-qg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750720AbcDAAX2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:23:28 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j35so82392825qge.0 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:23:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160208022152.GA21591@kroah.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next , Linux kernel mailing list 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? Regards, Peter Hurley