Hi Krzysztof,

On 19 February 2016 at 11:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

2016-02-19 4:14 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon [off-list ref]:

quoted

Hi Peter,

On 18 February 2016 at 23:18, Peter Hurley [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Anand,

On 02/18/2016 09:40 AM, Anand Moon wrote:

quoted

From: Anand Moon <redacted>

changes fix the correct order of the spin_lock_irqrestore/save.

Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <redacted>
---
 drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c
index d72cd73..96fe14d 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c

@@ -759,9 +759,9 @@ static irqreturn_t s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars(int irq, void *id)
      }

      if (uart_circ_chars_pending(xmit) < WAKEUP_CHARS) {
-             spin_unlock(&port->lock);
+             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
              uart_write_wakeup(port);
-             spin_lock(&port->lock);
+             spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);

This driver shouldn't be dropping the spin lock at for write wakeup.
If this is causing lock-ups in a line discipline, the line discipline
needs fixed.

Thanks for pointing out.
Their is no lock up, just the inconstancy of the spin_lock.
Then I will resend this patch dropping the spin_unlock/spin_lock
around uart_write_wakeup.
Is that ok with you.

Anand, before doing that, can you check Peter's second sentence? I
mean the "If this is causing lock-ups in a line discipline, the line
discipline needs fixed.".
Don't drop the spin-locks "just because". I would be happy to see more
detailed explanation in changelog.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Yes I understood the meaning of the sentence. Already the
s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars function.
holds the lock port->lock for safe IRQ execution.

http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c#L701

Best Regards
-Anand Moon