From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wang YanQing Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:29:58 +0800 Message-ID: <20130521162958.GA1927@udknight> References: <20130521051511.GA11435@udknight> <519B7249.2070207@hurleysoftware.com> <20130521144215.GA5302@udknight.homenetwork> <519B976A.3050708@hurleysoftware.com> <20130521161849.GA11322@udknight.homenetwork> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:40406 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762Ab3EUQaL (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2013 12:30:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130521161849.GA11322@udknight.homenetwork> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Hurley , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: > > Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() > > over many more source files than the single-use case of > > do_take_over_console(). > > > The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is > > exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. > > This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, > but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite > do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. > > But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface > is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console > as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. But if we do this, then we have two version functions do the same thing except caller/callee hold lock, I can't see much sense to have them at the same time. Thanks.