Hi On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: > 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.
I have picked it up and resent a fixed patch. I screwed up the version field, so it's called v3 again.. sorry. Thanks David -- 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/
