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

Sorry, In you reply not all patch.
Main idea here -  we never flash last (struct tty_buffer) in the active buffer.
Only data for ldisc. (tty->buf.head->read = tty->buf.head->commit).
At that moment driver can collect(write) data in buffer without conflict.

--- 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;
 	}
-	tty->buf.tail = NULL;
+	WARN_ON(tty->buf.head != tty->buf.tail);
+	tty->buf.head->read = tty->buf.head->commit;
 }
 
 /**