Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the tree
From: Greg KH
Date: Tue Sep 08 2009 - 12:09:35 EST
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 03:55:44PM -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think that the "honor opost flag for echoes" patch is actually
>
> wrong.
>
>
>
> We check O_OPOST() in the _caller_ for the regular write case, and that
>
> test actually looks like this:
>
>
>
> if (O_OPOST(tty) && !(test_bit(TTY_HW_COOK_OUT, &tty->flags))) {
>
>
>
> so at a minimum, if we add it to process_output() we should likely add it
>
> in the same format. But if we need that test, I'd rather do it in the
>
> caller anyway, like we already do for regular writes.
>
>
Yes, very true. The old opost() function also contained the O_OPOST
>
check (i.e. causing a double check for normal writes), and you are right
>
that we should not reintroduce it (and it makes sense for the caller to
>
check it).
>
>
There is only the one case in which the O_OPOST check is needed before
>
calling do_output_char() (in process_echoes()), so we could just inline
>
the test there. Take a look at my new attached patch (untested also).
>
I'll test and resubmit, assuming there are no objections.
Thanks for doing this, I'll drop the patch from my tree and wait for you
to test and resubmit this.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/