On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:39:09AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/02/2007 10:34 AM, Jesper Nilsson wrote:
> > @@ -4434,7 +3941,7 @@ block_til_ready(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *
> > filp,
> > if (tty_hung_up_p(filp) ||
> > (info->flags & ASYNC_CLOSING)) {
> > if (info->flags & ASYNC_CLOSING)
> > - interruptible_sleep_on(&info->close_wait);
> > + wait_event_interruptible(info->close_wait, 0);
>
> Aiee, this is nonsense, 0 will never be 1, only signal will stop this, use
> completion instead.
True, I've changed it to use "!info->flags & ASYNC_CLOSING" condition
for now, as this is a more non-intrusive patch.
I will look at using completion later, at the same time as using
spinlocks instead of volatiles.
> You maybe want to create a function for this deinit invoked from
> more places in the new code.
Good idea, I've done that too for the new patch.
> > static int __init
> > @@ -4812,7 +4418,26 @@ rs_init(void)
> > #if !defined(CONFIG_ETRAX_SERIAL_FAST_TIMER)
> > init_timer(&flush_timer);
> > flush_timer.function = timed_flush_handler;
>
> Side note, this should be setup_timer without accessing .function.
Also excellent point, have done so.
> > - if (request_irq(SERIAL_IRQ_NBR, ser_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED |
> > IRQF_DISABLED, "serial ", NULL))
> > - panic("irq8");
> > + if (request_irq(SERIAL_IRQ_NBR, ser_interrupt,
> > + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_DISABLED, "serial ", driver))
> > + panic("%s: Failed to request irq8", __FUNCTION__);
>
> Is the panic needed here? Can't the cris architecture live without the driver?
There are some differing opinions on that here, it should probably not
reach this unless there is a configuration error, and so it more like
a debug-help. I'll put this on the "to clarify" list.
> > + u8 dma_out_enabled:1; /* Set to 1 if DMA should be used */
> > + u8 dma_in_enabled:1; /* Set to 1 if DMA should be used */
>
> bitfileds generate ugly code.
Agreed, I've changed them to u8 instead. The space saving is
not worth the aggravation.
> > + volatile int tr_running; /* 1 if output is running */
>
> What's the volatile for here? atomic_t?
The driver uses old volatile style synchronization. Changing over
to spinlocks is like I mentioned on my todo-list.
> > +#ifdef DECLARE_WAITQUEUE
> > + wait_queue_head_t open_wait;
> > + wait_queue_head_t close_wait;
> > +#else
> > + struct wait_queue *open_wait;
> > + struct wait_queue *close_wait;
> > +#endif
>
> We know, we have it, don't we?
True, old compatibility code, removed in the new patch.
> Jiri Slaby ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University
Thanks for all the comments!
/^JN - Jesper Nilsson
--
Jesper Nilsson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
