On 29.11.2012 17:54, Alan Cox wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
index 6c9b7cd..4f02f9c 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c

@@ -114,11 +114,14 @@ static void __tty_buffer_flush(struct tty_struct *tty)
 {
 	struct tty_buffer *thead;
 
-	while ((thead = tty->buf.head) != NULL) {
-		tty->buf.head = thead->next;
-		tty_buffer_free(tty, thead);
+	if (tty->buf.head == NULL)
+		return;
+	while ((thead = tty->buf.head->next) != NULL) {
+		tty_buffer_free(tty, tty->buf.head);
+		tty->buf.head = thead;

This part of the change seems to have no effect at all. There are no
locks held so there is nothing guaranteeing how the other processors
views of the order of operations will be affected.

Alan

/**
 *	__tty_buffer_flush		-	flush full tty buffers
 *	@tty: tty to flush
 *
 *	flush all the buffers containing receive data. Caller must
 *	hold the buffer lock and must have ensured no parallel flush to
 *	ldisc is running.
 *
 *	Locking: Caller must hold tty->buf.lock
 */

Please, don't ignore my patch.
Please, Look at it one more time thoroughly.
Before REVERT [PATCH] tty: hold lock across tty buffer finding and buffer filling.
Thank you.