From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 05:04:37 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbcon: warn on invalid cursor blink intervals
Message-Id: <573E9AE5.1020206@ozlabs.org>
List-Id: <linux-fbdev.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1463510464-28124-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>
 <20160517204912.GA29719@amd>
 <CACVXFVPdjfFkRFucTQsOHsVFtgm1W0JtOTqjyDzyNbzygghUyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1605181519540.8967@laptop>
 <ed8fa4ca-49e0-3ff4-5499-fc5250dd8ae2@caviumnetworks.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1605182252230.12118@laptop>
 <573DE2D0.1050402@caviumnetworks.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1605191708400.15396@laptop>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1605191726030.15478@laptop>
 <CACVXFVM77CaHGE9kwhaxoa-fuNxZrDDzpCdHfnRno857pQANZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <573E75CD.6050202@ozlabs.org>
 <CACVXFVPRiOShXHNCQsDe_0AoC++wQAfix3OTjyKC4spu1r9LvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVPRiOShXHNCQsDe_0AoC++wQAfix3OTjyKC4spu1r9LvQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Scot Doyle <lkml14@scotdoyle.com>, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>, David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>, Dann Frazier <dann.frazier@canonical.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>, Alistair Popple <alistair@popple.id.au>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>, "Chintakuntla, Radha" <Radha.Chintakuntla@caviumnetworks.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>

Hi Ming,

>Then looks there are two fix patches acked & tested:
>
> - the patch in this thread
> - another one "[PATCH] tty: vt: Fix soft lockup in fbcon cursor
>blink timer."
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/17/455
>
>So which one will be pushed to linus?

Not that it's my call, but we may want both; the first as a safety
measure to prevent an invalid cur_blink_jiffies ever being set, and the
second one to actually fix the initialisation of vc_cur_blink_ms (and
address the warning introduced by the first).

I guess we could just go with the latter for stable...

Cheers,


Jeremy