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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

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@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 :(
> 
> 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 :)
--
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/