Am Dienstag, 27. August 2013, 22:00:59 schrieben Sie: > Wolfgang Walter <w...@stwm.de> wrote: > > > Wolfgang Walter <w...@stwm.de> wrote: > > > > I made similar changes so that several applications we use work. I > > > > tested > > > > your patches, all but one do work. I don't know why one does not, > > > > though. > > > > > > What patch doesn't work for you? > > > > I tested all your patches together (indivually they will not really work > > here). > > Yeah, the patches need to be tested after applying all of them. They were > broken into smaller parts in order to make regression test easier in case of > a regression. If I don't know what doesn't work I can't make any > improvement.
Yes, that's clear. I'll have a closer look what's the main difference. The problematic application uses asynchronous IO. I wrote my patch 2009 (and earlier version 2008) so I have to rethink about it. I remember that TX_TXEMPTY detection was a problem, then. It could get lost. The reason I moved the output buffer empty detection from get_irq_info() into check_events() was simply because I thought handling input queue in check_events() but ouput queue in get_irq_info() seems odd. I also think that it's better to detect that get_irq_info() basicly does not work with drivers not supporting TIOCGICOUNT and it is good to have that information in the callers of get_irq_info(). So I return STATUS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED and handle the situation in the caller. And then it is better to move empty sending queue handling out of get_irq_info(). I handle the TIOCSERGETLSR wrong, as I see now (I should & with TIOCSER_TEMT). Regards, -- Wolfgang Walter Studentenwerk München Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts Abteilungsleiter IT Leopoldstraße 15 80802 München
