On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0700
Darren Hart [off-list ref] wrote:

On 06/05/2012 04:48 PM, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Darren Hart [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Are there still concerns about the additional lock? I'll resend V2
tomorrow with the single whitespace fix if I don't hear anything back today.

I understand your saying. Looks good.
However, I am not expert of linux-uart core system.
So, I'd like UART maintainer to give us your opinion.

Greg, Alan,

any concerns with the locking approach I've adopted in the patch?

Only the one I noted in my reply the first time around which is that you
can't permit tty->low_latency=1 unless your tty receive path is not an
IRQ path. From a locking point of view the change makes sense anyway.

Going back over it your console locking also needs care - an oops or
printk within the areas the private lock covers will hang the box. That
should also probably be a trylock style lock as with the other lock on
that path

Alan