From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753958Ab2IWOqq (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:46:46 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:41825 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753409Ab2IWOqp (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:46:45 -0400 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20120923064007.GA2994@moon> References: <20120913095623.GB28508@moon> <20120913135131.5b251797@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120913125401.GK19956@moon> <20120913172507.5039e3c6@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20120922180639.GC11610@moon> <20120922200731.GD14004@kroah.com> <20120922201144.GD11610@moon> <20120922215232.GA25778@moon> <20120923010953.GA17663@kroah.com> <20120923064007.GA2994@moon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [RFC] tty: Add get- ioctls to fetch tty status From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:46:24 -0700 To: Cyrill Gorcunov , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alan Cox CC: LKML , Pavel Emelyanov , Jiri Slaby Message-ID: <34f6ba7b-2c50-492e-9267-52d328a8d37f@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:09:53PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 01:52:32AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:11:44AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> > > >> > > > Sysfs is one value per file, you have three values here, please >make 3 >> > > > files. >> > > > >> > > > And document them in Documentation/ABI/. >> > > >> > > Hmm, sure Greg, I'll update. Thanks! >> > >> > Something like below I suppose? Look, if there will be no complains >> > on tech aspects on the patch (locking and tty refs) -- I'll update >> > Documentation. Just want be sure I've made no mistakes here. >> > >> > Another question -- would not it be worth to wrap code with >> > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE? >> >> Alan's point stands, what's the use of this if it can instantly >change >> after you read the value? > >We use it when we do a checkpoint, ie when tasks are stopped. I think >it's >close to data obtained from procfs (ie valid once you read it but can >be >changed right after that operation). Maybe I should put everything to >procfs, or stick back with ioctl calls? The problem as I see it is that you don't know if your process is the lock holder. -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.