Skip to contentSkip to conversation

TTY: pty, fix pty counting in "/proc/sys/kernel/pty/nr"

PATCH In review Ilya Zykov 2 participants 5 messages Oct 27, 2011 TTY layer and serial drivers

lore
Share & tools
lore

Ilya Zykov

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 TTY: pty, fix pty counting in "/proc/sys/kernel/pty/nr"

Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24
Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1.
Disscussed on [email protected] "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" and not accepted.
Although, I think it's clear.

drivers/tty/pty.c +4 -10
diff -uprN -X ../../dontdiff a/drivers/tty/pty.c b/drivers/tty/pty.c
@@ -36,13 +36,15 @@
 static struct tty_driver *ptm_driver;
 static struct tty_driver *pts_driver;
 #endif
+static int pty_count;
 
 static void pty_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *filp)
 {
 	BUG_ON(!tty);
-	if (tty->driver->subtype == PTY_TYPE_MASTER)
+	if (tty->driver->subtype == PTY_TYPE_MASTER) {
 		WARN_ON(tty->count > 1);
-	else {
+		pty_count--;
+	} else {
 		if (tty->count > 2)
 			return;
 	}

@@ -446,7 +448,6 @@ static inline void legacy_pty_init(void)
 int pty_limit = NR_UNIX98_PTY_DEFAULT;
 static int pty_limit_min;
 static int pty_limit_max = NR_UNIX98_PTY_MAX;
-static int pty_count;
 
 static struct cdev ptmx_cdev;
 

@@ -599,15 +600,9 @@ free_mem_out:
 	return -ENOMEM;
 }
 
-static void pty_unix98_remove(struct tty_driver *driver, struct tty_struct *tty)
-{
-	pty_count--;
-}
-
 static const struct tty_operations ptm_unix98_ops = {
 	.lookup = ptm_unix98_lookup,
 	.install = pty_unix98_install,
-	.remove = pty_unix98_remove,
 	.open = pty_open,
 	.close = pty_close,
 	.write = pty_write,

@@ -624,7 +619,6 @@ static const struct tty_operations ptm_u
 static const struct tty_operations pty_unix98_ops = {
 	.lookup = pts_unix98_lookup,
 	.install = pty_unix98_install,
-	.remove = pty_unix98_remove,
 	.open = pty_open,
 	.close = pty_close,
 	.write = pty_write,
Signed-off-by Ilya Zykov <[email protected]>
#1 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Ilya Zykov

Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24
Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1.
Disscussed on [email protected] "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" and not accepted.
Although, I think it's clear.

Ilya, is there some reason you are ignoring the tty maintainer and sending these to Linus directly? These patches need to be tested in linux-next, so at the earliest, they can be merged into Linus's tree for 3.3, they are NOT 3.2 material, especially given that they are not even accepted by the current tty developers.

So please work with us, and don't try to circumvent the existing process, it is not the way we work here.

Especially as this specific patch was already rejected, for very good reasons, why are you ignoring those reasons?

thanks,

greg k-h

author
#2 lore raw
Quoted 16 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · Ilya Zykov

Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24
Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1.
Disscussed on [email protected] "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" and not accepted.
Although, I think it's clear.

Ilya, is there some reason you are ignoring the tty maintainer and sending these to Linus directly? These patches need to be tested in linux-next, so at the earliest, they can be merged into Linus's tree for 3.3, they are NOT 3.2 material, especially given that they are not even accepted by the current tty developers.

So please work with us, and don't try to circumvent the existing process, it is not the way we work here.

Quoted 7 lines

Especially as this specific patch was already rejected, for very good reasons, why are you ignoring those reasons?

thanks,

greg k-h

OK, I understand you rules.
But I don't understand, what for, you accept patch(commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24), where "pty" call tty_driver_remove_tty(), only for invoke its own route(pty_unix98_remove).

Thank you.
Ilya.

#3 lore raw
Quoted 27 lines · Ilya Zykov
Quoted 16 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · Ilya Zykov

Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24
Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1.
Disscussed on [email protected] "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" and not accepted.
Although, I think it's clear.

Ilya, is there some reason you are ignoring the tty maintainer and sending these to Linus directly? These patches need to be tested in linux-next, so at the earliest, they can be merged into Linus's tree for 3.3, they are NOT 3.2 material, especially given that they are not even accepted by the current tty developers.

So please work with us, and don't try to circumvent the existing process, it is not the way we work here.

Quoted 7 lines

Especially as this specific patch was already rejected, for very good reasons, why are you ignoring those reasons?

thanks,

greg k-h

Quoted 5 lines

OK, I understand you rules.
But I don't understand, what for, you accept patch(commit:
24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24), where "pty" call tty_driver_remove_tty(), only for invoke its own route(pty_unix98_remove).

Please work with Alan and Jiri to get their acceptance of your patch, they are the ones that need to ack it before I will.

thanks,

greg k-h

author
#4 lore raw
In reply to Greg KH
Quoted 16 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines · Ilya Zykov

Regression for commit: 24d406a6bf736f7aebdc8fa0f0ec86e0890c6d24
Commit: 24d406a6b accepted in Linux 3.1.
Disscussed on [email protected] "subject: [PATCH] TTY: pty, fix pty counting" and not accepted.
Although, I think it's clear.

Ilya, is there some reason you are ignoring the tty maintainer and sending these to Linus directly? These patches need to be tested in linux-next, so at the earliest, they can be merged into Linus's tree for 3.3, they are NOT 3.2 material, especially given that they are not even accepted by the current tty developers.

So please work with us, and don't try to circumvent the existing process, it is not the way we work here.

Quoted 7 lines

Especially as this specific patch was already rejected, for very good reasons, why are you ignoring those reasons?

thanks,

greg k-h

But I don't understand, what for, "pty" driver, calling tty_driver_remove_tty(), only for call its own function(pty_unix98_remove).

Thank you.
Ilya.