On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 08:47 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > > I would just do:
> > > if (!retval)
> > > tty->count++;
> > > here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count.
> >
> > I thought about that and probably should have described in com
On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> I would just do:
>> if (!retval)
>> tty->count++;
>> here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count.
>
> I thought about that and probably should have described in commit
> message why I haven't done that: I prefer to keep it as was as I
On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 16:38 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 08/29/2018, 04:23 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > In case of tty_ldisc_reinit() failure, tty->count should be
> > decremented
> > back, otherwise we will never release_tty().
> > Never seen it in the real life, but it seems not really hard to
On 08/29/2018, 04:23 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> In case of tty_ldisc_reinit() failure, tty->count should be decremented
> back, otherwise we will never release_tty().
> Never seen it in the real life, but it seems not really hard to hit.
I did see it. And this fixes it.
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
4 matches
Mail list logo