From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] vt: Add con_unblank callback to struct consw
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:44:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-174092@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016093357.33294-2-tzimmermann@suse.de>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] vt: Meaningful commit message mismatch regarding con_blank vs con_unblank
--
commit b9997468d0018b5c7f81e52b909c357d93d38641
Author: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
vt: Add con_unblank callback to struct consw
This commit introduces a new con_unblank callback to struct consw as
the inverse operation of con_blank. It updates console blanking and
unblanking logic to utilize this new callback when implemented, while
falling back to the old semantics otherwise.
> Add struct consw.con_unblank as inverse operation to con_black.
[Severity: Medium]
This isn't a bug, but there's a minor typo here: "con_black" instead of
"con_blank".
> If implemented invoke con_blank to turn the console from blanked to
> unblanked.
[Severity: Medium]
Does this description accurately reflect the code changes? The text states
that con_blank is invoked to turn the console from blanked to unblanked if
the new callback is implemented, but the code actually invokes con_unblank
directly.
Looking at do_unblank_screen() in the diff:
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> --- a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -4756,9 +4766,15 @@ void do_unblank_screen(int leaving_gfx)
> }
>
> console_blanked = 0;
> - if (vc->vc_sw->con_blank(vc, VESA_NO_BLANKING, leaving_gfx))
> - /* Low-level driver cannot restore -> do it ourselves */
> - update_screen(vc);
> + if (vc->vc_sw->con_unblank) {
> + if (vc->vc_sw->con_unblank(vc))
> + /* Low-level driver cannot restore -> do it ourselves */
> + update_screen(vc);
The new logic successfully calls con_unblank(vc) instead of con_blank() for
this operation. Could the commit message be updated to clarify that
con_unblank() is invoked directly when transitioning from blanked to
unblanked?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016093357.33294-1-tzimmermann@suse.de?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 9:11 [PATCH v2 0/7] vt: Simplify console-blanking interface Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] vt: Add con_unblank callback to struct consw Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 9:44 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] dummycon: Implement struct consw.con_unblank Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 9:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] fbcon: " Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 10:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] newport_con: " Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 10:07 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] sticon: " Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 10:13 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] vgacon: " Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 10:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 9:11 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] vt: Remove old-style con_blank Thomas Zimmermann
2026-10-16 10:38 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=sashiko-outbox-174092@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox