Re: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] vt: fix console lock vs. kernfs s_active lock order

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > >>>> Fine. Just another expedient fix piled on top of other expedient fixes
> > > >>>> that go back past 3.9 with no end in sight.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm also happy to look into narrowing down the scope of console_lock in
> > > >>> fbdev/fbcon as was suggested. But doing that as a follow-up to this
> > > >>> change still makes sense to me since it will take more time and have the
> > > >>> risk of regressions that are not related to what this change fixes.
> > > >>
> > > >> I apologize for my tone. I'm not blaming you for the current situation,
> > > >> nor is it your responsibility to go fix vt/fbcon/fbdev driver stack
> > > >> inversion. I'm just trying to bring some awareness of the larger scope,
> > > >> so that collectively we take action and resolve the underlying problems.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah I guess I should tune down my NACK to a Grumpy-if-merged-by too.
> > > > We have a lot of nonoptimal solutions at hand here :(
> > > 
> > > So where does that leave us with this fix?  Should we wait for someone
> > > to come along and do all the rework?  Imre said he'd be willing to do
> > > it, but still feels this fix makes sense
> > > 
> > > Or we could just abandon the fb layer altogether (my preference).  In
> > > that case fixing this is fine, since we'll be able to ignore it for
> > > configs that switch over to using !fbdev and kmscon.
> > 
> > I think I already merged the patches a while ago :)
> 
> Yes, but only the first two patches. This third one is not merged
> AFAICS.

Yeah there was a big discussion in that one which eventualy resulted in my
grumpy ack and my nack retracted. So fwiw

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

on 3/3.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch