From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:33:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fbdev/core: Disable console-lock warnings when fb.lockless_register_fb is set Message-Id: <20180719103355.GC424@jagdpanzerIV> List-Id: References: <20180718093002.4596-1-tzimmermann@suse.de> <20180718093002.4596-2-tzimmermann@suse.de> <20180719085303.mkxu7i7zl4suybcz@pathway.suse.cz> <20180719100526.GB424@jagdpanzerIV> <48b38f83-f3cf-943d-bd31-ab2e1bd29d0a@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <48b38f83-f3cf-943d-bd31-ab2e1bd29d0a@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Thomas Zimmermann Cc: Petr Mladek , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky , b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, hdegoede@redhat.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Hi, On (07/19/18 12:20), Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Am 19.07.2018 um 12:05 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky: > > On (07/19/18 10:53), Petr Mladek wrote: > >> Hmm, this approach is racy if there are other users > >> saving/setting/restoring ignore_console_lock_warning in parallel. > >> I mean that this works only when the entire safe/set/restore > >> operation is nested or sequential. > > > > Good point! > > > > However, I tend to think that we don't need to care about it > > that much. Having a counter to permit nesting would probably be > > better, but, like you said, it's unlikely that we will see any > > problems with ignore_console_lock_warning anyway. So we can keep > > it simple [IOW - the way it is]. > > I just sent a new patch set based on atomic_t Ah, just saw the new version. > and TBH it's easier to use that this version. I only had to introduce > the save-state variable in the caller because I couldn't do inc/dec. No objections, if it makes your life easier. Thanks. -ss