From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:01:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:01:47 -0500 Received: from www.deepbluesolutions.co.uk ([212.18.232.186]:25354 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:01:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:01:27 +0000 From: Russell King To: Robert Love Cc: Alex Khripin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BKL in tty code? Message-ID: <20020130210127.H19292@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020130184950.GA22442@morgoth.mit.edu> <1012418760.3219.43.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1012418760.3219.43.camel@phantasy>; from rml@tech9.net on Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:25:59PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:25:59PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > It has less to do with lock contention and much more to do with the > design of the tty / console layer. It isn't the kernel's prettiest > code. > > There is probably some cleanup that is possible, but really getting the > thing in gear (which means no BKL, which is probably the hardest part to > rip out) require some level of rewrite. I've been thinking about the serial layer, and its far from trivial. Unless its done right, we'll end up with a mess of locks -> deadlock. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html