Re: [PATCH 04/33] vt: More locking checks

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-05-27T07:22:14Z

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:53:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > I honestly have no idea what the subtle differences between
> > con_is_visible, con_is_fg (internal to vt.c) and con_is_bound are. But
> > it looks like both vc->vc_display_fg and con_driver_map are protected
> > by the console_lock, so probably better if we hold that when checking
> > this.
> >
> > To do that I had to deinline the con_is_visible function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Martin Hostettler <textshell@uchuujin.de>
> > Cc: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Do you want to merge this through your console tree or ack for merging
> through drm/fbdev? It's part of a bigger series, and I'd like to have more
> testing with this in our trees, but also ok to merge stand-alone if you
> prefer that. It's just locking checks and some docs.
>
> Same for the preceeding patch in this series here.

For all of these, please take them through your tree(s):

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>