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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 :(
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/