Alan Cox wrote:
> ttys = tty_port_tty_get(&bc->port);
> stuff
> if (ttys != NULL)
> tty stuff
> tty_kref_put(ttys);
Under what circumstances can ttys be NULL? I currently only use this code in
the RX and TX interrupt handlers, which are both enabled in the
tty_port_operations.activate() function.
Is this right for the TX handler:
static irqreturn_t ehv_bc_tty_tx_isr(int irq, void *data)
{
struct ehv_bc_data *bc = data;
struct tty_struct *ttys = tty_port_tty_get(&bc->port);
ehv_bc_tx_dequeue(bc);
if (ttys) {
tty_wakeup(ttys);
tty_kref_put(ttys);
}
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
I just want to make sure that testing for NULL is really necessary in my
interrupt handlers.
>> > + len = min_t(unsigned int,
>> > + CIRC_CNT_TO_END(bc->head, bc->tail, BUF_SIZE),
>> > + EV_BYTE_CHANNEL_MAX_BYTES);
> The kfifo API is probably faster and cleaner. Much of tty still uses
> CIRC_* because they predate the new APIs.
Ok, I'll change it.
> You really also need a hangup method so vhangup() does the right thing
> and you can securely do logins etc and sessions on your console. As
> you've got no hardware entangled in this and you already use tty_port
> helpers the hangup helper will do the work for you.
Ok.
>
> I guess the only other thing to consider is whether you want to implement
> a SYSRQ interface on your console ?
I don't think byte channels can support SYSRQ, but I'll look into it.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
