Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: Drop tty->count on tty_reopen() failure

[Jiri Slaby]

On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> I would just do:
>>   if (!retval)
>>     tty->count++;
>> here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count.
> 
> I thought about that and probably should have described in commit
> message why I haven't done that: I prefer to keep it as was as I did Cc
> stable tree - to keep the chance of regression to minimum.
> 
> I agree that your way is cleaner, but probably it may be done as
> cleanup on top for linux-next..

Agreed, so care to cook it up as 5/4 in this series :)?

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs