From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:39:41 +0100 From: Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: Remove obsolete bust_spinlock() implementation In-Reply-To: <20181123070212.GA3300@osiris> References: <20181122141529.14933-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20181123021748.GB1582@jagdpanzerIV> <20181123070212.GA3300@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20181127083941.3bebcf13@mschwideX1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:02:12 +0100 Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:17:48AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (11/22/18 15:15), Petr Mladek wrote: > > > The commit cefc8be82403cf ("Consolidate bust_spinlocks()") kept > > > the s390-specific implementation because of the absence of CONFIG_VT. > > > In fact, the only difference was calling console_unblank() instead of > > > unblank_screen(). > > > > > > The common implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c started to call > > > unblank_screen() explicitly since the commit b61312d353da187 > > > ("oops handling: ensure that any oops is flushed to the mtdoops > > > console"). > > > > > > As a result, the custom implementation is not longer necessary. > > > And we could get all the other improvements of the common > > > implementation for free. > > > > I believe I sent a similar patch several weeks ago and it's > > in s390 patch queue as of now, waiting for the next merge > > window. > > > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20181025081108.GB26561@osiris > > Yes, it will be added soon to the features branch of the > s390/linux.git repository on kernel.org and then hit linux-next. The patch is now queued for the next merge window. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.