On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de> wrote:
>> Positive? >> I thought this was precisely the problem, ->device() changing the >> index '0' into something non-zero. >> The reports we had were that the line 'tty0' changed into 'tty1'. >> Hence ->device() converted cs[i]->index (which is '0') into index >> (which is '1'). >> Hence the check would be correct, wouldn't it? > > If "cs[i]" points to tty0, then cs[i]->index is 0. If you call > ->device(), it will store 1 (or !=0) in "index". Thus, "(driver && > (index > 0))" will be true and you will write tty1 into the file > instead of tty0. So you don't want to check whether the new value is > non-zero, but whether the *previous* value was 0, turning this into: > > if (driver && (cs[i]->index > 0 || driver->major != TTY_MAJOR)) > > So loosely speaking, we use the new code only for devices which either > are not a VT or have an idx > 0. Otherwise, we use our fallback. Hannes, David, care to update the patch to do that? It all sounds fine to me. And we should get this merged again. Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
